Introduction to the Appeals Court Ruling
An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.
The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Background of the Deployment
The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.
Rationale Behind the Decision
It said that while presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. “The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows," the court wrote. "The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
Implications of the Ruling
It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order. The California governor’s office and the White House didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
Wider Implications
The court case could have wider implications on the president’s power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down.
The Court Case
Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump’s command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.
Initial Ruling and Appeal
Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.” “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can’t second guess the president’s decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.
Conclusion
The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. This decision highlights the complex balance of power between the federal government and states, especially in matters of national security and public order. The implications of this ruling could be far-reaching, affecting not just California but other states as well, particularly in how they respond to future protests and emergencies.
FAQs
- Q: What was the appeals court’s decision regarding Trump’s control of the California National Guard?
A: The appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles. - Q: Why did the Trump administration deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles?
A: The deployment was in response to protests over immigration raids, with the administration citing the need to restore order and prevent violent acts by protesters. - Q: What are the implications of this ruling for the balance of power between the federal government and states?
A: The ruling could have wider implications on the president’s power to deploy soldiers within the United States, potentially affecting how states respond to future protests and emergencies. - Q: What was the initial ruling by the lower court, and how did it differ from the appeals court’s decision?
A: The lower court found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, while the appeals court concluded that Trump likely lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.
