Introduction to the 9th Circuit’s Review of Trump’s Case
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday questioning both President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles and the court’s right to review it, teeing up what is likely to be a fierce new challenge to presidential power in the U.S. Supreme Court. A panel of three judges — two appointed by President Trump, one by President Biden — pressed hard on the administration’s central assertion that the president had nearly unlimited discretion to deploy the military on American streets.
Background of the Case
But they also appeared to cast doubt on last week’s ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that control of the National Guard must immediately return to California authorities. A pause on that decision remains in effect while the judges deliberate, with a decision expected as soon as this week. “The crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump’s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.
The Limits of Presidential Authority
The questions at the heart of the case test the limits of presidential authority, which the U.S. Supreme Court has vastly expanded in recent years. When one of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, asked if a president could call up the National Guard in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in response to unrest in California and be confident that decision was “entirely unreviewable” by the courts, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate replied unequivocally: “Yes.” “That couldn’t be any more clear,” Shumate said. “The president gets to decide how many forces are necessary to quell rebellion and execute federal laws.”
Arguments Presented to the Court
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt said that interpretation was dangerously broad and risked harm to American democratic norms if upheld. “We don’t have a problem with according the president some level of appropriate deference,” Harbourt said. “The problem … is that there’s really nothing to defer to here.” The Trump administration said it deployed troops to L.A. to ensure immigration enforcement agents could make arrests and conduct deportations, arguing demonstrations downtown against that activity amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
The Deployment of Troops to L.A.
State and local officials said the move was unjustified and nakedly political — an assessment shared by Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer, whose ruling last week would have handed control of most troops back to California leaders. Breyer heard the challenge in California’s Northern District, but saw his decision appealed and put on hold within hours by the 9th Circuit. The appellate court’s stay left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines in L.A. through the weekend, when demonstrators flooded streets as part of the nationwide “No Kings” protests.
Marines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during “No Kings Day” in Downtown on Saturday.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
The Impact of the Deployment
The events were largely peaceful, with just more than three dozen demonstrators arrested in L.A. Saturday and none on Sunday — compared to more than 500 taken into custody during the unrest of the previous week. Hundreds of Marines still stationed in L.A.”will provide logistical support” processing ICE detainees, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Tuesday. Under last week’s executive order, National Guard troops will remain deployed for 60 days. Arguing before the appellate panel Tuesday, Shumate said the military presence was necessary to defend against ongoing “mob violence” in L.A. streets.
Legal Questions and Concerns
“The crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump’s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. The questions at the heart of the case test the limits of presidential authority, which the U.S. Supreme Court has vastly expanded in recent years. “Federal personnel in Los Angeles continue to face sustained mob violence in Los Angeles,” the administration’s lawyer said. “Unfortunately, local authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property.” Harbourt struck back at those claims. “[Violence] is of profound concern to the leaders of the state,” the California deputy solicitor general said. “But the state is dealing with it.”
Conclusion
The 9th Circuit’s decision will influence how the next set of judges interpret the case — a process that could drag on for months. With the issue all but certain to face further litigation and a fast-track to the Supreme Court, observers said the 9th Circuit’s decision will be crucial in determining the limits of presidential power. The case has sparked concerns about the potential for unchecked executive power and the impact on American democratic norms.
FAQs
Q: What is the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue is whether President Trump has the authority to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles without the consent of state and local authorities.
Q: What is the 9th Circuit’s role in the case?
A: The 9th Circuit is reviewing the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who ruled that control of the National Guard must immediately return to California authorities.
Q: What are the implications of the case?
A: The case has implications for the limits of presidential authority and the potential for unchecked executive power.
Q: What is the expected outcome of the case?
A: The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, where it will be decided in the next term.
Q: What are the concerns about the deployment of troops to L.A.?
A: Concerns include the potential for violence, the impact on local law enforcement, and the erosion of trust between the community and law enforcement.
