9th Circuit to Hear Appeal on Trump’s Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles Amid Protests
San Francisco: A federal appeals court will hear critical arguments today on whether former President Donald Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by deploying the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during a period of civil unrest and protests.
The hearing comes after a lower court last week ruled that Trump unlawfully federalized California’s National Guard without the consent of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, in his decision, said Trump’s actions violated federal law by failing to meet the legal threshold for taking control of a state’s military forces, which is typically restricted to circumstances involving “invasion” or “rebellion.”
Breyer ordered that control of California’s National Guard be returned to the governor. However, hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed that ruling, setting the stage for today’s hearing to determine whether the pause will remain in effect during the appeal.
The Trump administration has argued that the deployment was legal and necessary to protect federal property and personnel, including immigration enforcement officers, and that the president alone has the authority to determine if a rebellion or similar threat exists.
In contrast, California’s lawsuit, filed on June 9, contends that the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines was a breach of state sovereignty and a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal military forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.
The controversy has ignited a broader national debate over the use of military force on American soil and the limits of presidential power. Tensions were further exacerbated over the weekend when a Democratic state lawmaker in Minnesota was assassinated amid large-scale protests and a military parade commemorating the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary held on the same day as Trump’s 79th birthday.
In his ruling, Judge Breyer warned of the dangerous precedent being set. “The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion,” he wrote.
The 9th Circuit panel reviewing the case comprises two Trump appointees and one judge appointed by President Joe Biden, a configuration that has drawn close attention given the politically charged nature of the case.
The court’s decision could have lasting implications on the balance of power between state and federal governments and the future use of U.S. military forces in response to domestic unrest.
