The recent appellate decision supports Trump's deployment of National Guard troops, despite significant pushback from local officials and the California Governor.
**Court Ruling Allows Trump to Retain Control Over California National Guard Despite Local Resistance**
**Court Ruling Allows Trump to Retain Control Over California National Guard Despite Local Resistance**
A U.S. court affirms President Trump's authority to deploy troops in Los Angeles amidst immigration unrest.
In a pivotal ruling, a U.S. appeals court has permitted President Donald Trump to maintain control of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, against the backdrop of intense protests over his immigration policies. Despite criticism from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local authorities who deem the deployment as an unnecessary provocation, the court found that Trump acted within his rights to mobilize the troops to "protect federal personnel... [and] property".
The contentious decision reverses an earlier ruling by Judge Charles Breyer, who had deemed Trump's deployment unlawful, arguing that the president did not adhere to Congressional stipulations regarding the mobilization of a state's National Guard. Judge Breyer stated that Trump must relinquish control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. However, while the lower court’s ruling was stayed until June 13 to allow for an appeal, the appellate court's unanimous decision allows the presence of the troops to continue, indicating that Trump's approach did not entirely evade judicial oversight.
In response to the ruling, Trump characterized the decision as a significant victory for his administration and pledged to protect cities and citizens across the nation. His recent actions, including deploying additional Marines to Los Angeles, have reignited a controversial discussion regarding the use of National Guard without state consent — a practice not seen since the civil rights era over half a century ago.
Governor Newsom countered, asserting the court’s decision ultimately challenges Trump's assertion of unchecked power over the National Guard. He emphasized that the deployment of military personnel against civilians must not go unchallenged, reinforcing the principle that no individual, including the former president, stands above the law.
The ruling grants continued deployment of troops tasked primarily with supporting federal agents during immigration enforcement actions — a point of contention that has fueled ongoing protests and unrest across the city. The implications of this legal decision resonate beyond California, touching on the broader dynamics of federal-state relations and the deployment of military forces in civilian contexts.
The contentious decision reverses an earlier ruling by Judge Charles Breyer, who had deemed Trump's deployment unlawful, arguing that the president did not adhere to Congressional stipulations regarding the mobilization of a state's National Guard. Judge Breyer stated that Trump must relinquish control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. However, while the lower court’s ruling was stayed until June 13 to allow for an appeal, the appellate court's unanimous decision allows the presence of the troops to continue, indicating that Trump's approach did not entirely evade judicial oversight.
In response to the ruling, Trump characterized the decision as a significant victory for his administration and pledged to protect cities and citizens across the nation. His recent actions, including deploying additional Marines to Los Angeles, have reignited a controversial discussion regarding the use of National Guard without state consent — a practice not seen since the civil rights era over half a century ago.
Governor Newsom countered, asserting the court’s decision ultimately challenges Trump's assertion of unchecked power over the National Guard. He emphasized that the deployment of military personnel against civilians must not go unchallenged, reinforcing the principle that no individual, including the former president, stands above the law.
The ruling grants continued deployment of troops tasked primarily with supporting federal agents during immigration enforcement actions — a point of contention that has fueled ongoing protests and unrest across the city. The implications of this legal decision resonate beyond California, touching on the broader dynamics of federal-state relations and the deployment of military forces in civilian contexts.
