The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday questioning both President Trump\u2019s decision to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles and the court\u2019s 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 \u2014 two appointed by President Trump, one by President Biden \u2014 pressed hard on the administration\u2019s central assertion that the president had nearly unlimited discretion to deploy the military on American streets.<\/p>\n
But they also appeared to cast doubt on last week\u2019s 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. \u201cThe crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump\u2019s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,\u201d said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.<\/p>\n
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 \u201centirely unreviewable\u201d by the courts, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate replied unequivocally: \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cThat couldn\u2019t be any more clear,\u201d Shumate said. \u201cThe president gets to decide how many forces are necessary to quell rebellion and execute federal laws.\u201d<\/p>\n
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt said that interpretation was dangerously broad and risked harm to American democratic norms if upheld. \u201cWe don\u2019t have a problem with according the president some level of appropriate deference,\u201d Harbourt said. \u201cThe problem … is that there\u2019s really nothing to defer to here.\u201d 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 \u201crebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n
State and local officials said the move was unjustified and nakedly political \u2014 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\u2019s Northern District, but saw his decision appealed and put on hold within hours by the 9th Circuit. The appellate court\u2019s 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 \u201cNo Kings\u201d protests.
\nMarines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during \u201cNo Kings Day\u201d in Downtown on Saturday.
\n(Carlin Stiehl\/Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n
The events were largely peaceful, with just more than three dozen demonstrators arrested in L.A. Saturday and none on Sunday \u2014 compared to more than 500 taken into custody during the unrest of the previous week. Hundreds of Marines still stationed in L.A.\u201dwill provide logistical support\u201d processing ICE detainees, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Tuesday. Under last week\u2019s 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 \u201cmob violence\u201d in L.A. streets.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump\u2019s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,\u201d 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. \u201cFederal personnel in Los Angeles continue to face sustained mob violence in Los Angeles,\u201d the administration\u2019s lawyer said. \u201cUnfortunately, local authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property.\u201d Harbourt struck back at those claims. \u201c[Violence] is of profound concern to the leaders of the state,\u201d the California deputy solicitor general said. \u201cBut the state is dealing with it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The 9th Circuit’s decision will influence how the next set of judges interpret the case \u2014 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Q: What is the main issue in the case?
\nA: 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.
\nQ: What is the 9th Circuit’s role in the case?
\nA: 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.
\nQ: What are the implications of the case?
\nA: The case has implications for the limits of presidential authority and the potential for unchecked executive power.
\nQ: What is the expected outcome of the case?
\nA: The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, where it will be decided in the next term.
\nQ: What are the concerns about the deployment of troops to L.A.?
\nA: Concerns include the potential for violence, the impact on local law enforcement, and the erosion of trust between the community and law enforcement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction to the 9th Circuit’s Review of Trump’s Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday questioning both President Trump\u2019s decision to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles and the court\u2019s right to review it, teeing up what is likely to be a fierce new challenge to presidential power in the U.S. Supreme […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":17054,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_lock_modified_date":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-17053","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-education"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/ca-times.brightspotcdn.com\/dims4\/default\/5935a74\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/3439x1805+0+243\/resize\/1200x630!\/quality\/75\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F94%2F38%2F5bf7e0474dae9e89e7c90093d806%2F1510133-me-ice-immigration-protest-64-gmf.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17053"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17053"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17053\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17055,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17053\/revisions\/17055"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17054"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}