9th Circuit Sides with Trump Administration on L.A. Troop Deployment

Introduction to the Case

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities.

The Ruling

“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard … is completely insulated from judicial review,” Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. “Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under long-standing precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor … our review of that decision must be highly deferential.”

Reaction from California Leaders

California leaders vowed to fight back in federal court. “This case is far from over,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in response to the ruling. “While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.” “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said.

Analysis from Legal Scholars

Legal scholars said the decision was expected — particularly as the 9th Circuit has moved from the country’s most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the start of Trump’s first term. “It’s critically important for the people to understand just how much power Congress has given the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge. “Judges for hundreds of years now have given extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military,” Merriam added. “There is no other area of law where the president or executive gets that level of deference.”

The Appellate Panel’s Sharp Questions

The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday’s hearing, appearing to reject the federal government’s assertion that courts had no right to review the president’s actions, while also undercutting California’s claim that Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to L.A. to quell a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.” “All three judges seemed skeptical of the arguments that each party was making in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “I was impressed with the questions,” she went on. “I think they were fair questions, I think they were hard questions. I think the judges were wrestling with the right issues.”

The Ruling’s Impact

The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer. Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order on June 12 would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.” Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power. Bennett’s opinion directly refuted the argument — made by Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate in Tuesday’s hearing — that the decision to federalize National Guard troops was “unreviewable.”

The Limits of Presidential Power

“Defendants argue that this language precludes review,” the judge wrote. “[But Supreme Court precedent] does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.” He also quoted at length from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling vs. Constantin, writing “[t]he nature of the [president’s] power also necessarily implies that there is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.”

Unresolved Issues

One thing Thursday’s ruling did not touch is whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement — an allegation California leveled in its original complaint but which Breyer effectively tabled last week. “The Posse Comitatus Act claim has not been resolved because it was essentially not ripe last Thursday,” when troops had just arrived, Goitein said. “It is ripe now. Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a ruling from the district court next week that could limit what troops can do on the ground,” she said.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 9th Circuit’s decision to side with the Trump administration on the deployment of troops in Los Angeles has significant implications for the limits of presidential power and the role of the military in domestic law enforcement. While the ruling does not resolve all the issues in the case, it sets an important precedent for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.

FAQs

• Q: What was the 9th Circuit’s decision on the deployment of troops in Los Angeles?
  A: The 9th Circuit decided to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court.
• Q: What is the Posse Comitatus Act, and how does it relate to the case?
  A: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, and California has alleged that the Trump administration violated this act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement.
• Q: What is the next step in the case?
  A: The case will return to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who may rule on the Posse Comitatus Act claim and other unresolved issues in the case.