An appeals court has temporarily overruled a federal judge's order to return California's National Guard control to state governance, enabling the deployment to continue amid ongoing protests against immigration policies.**
Appeals Court Grants Trump Temporary Hold on California National Guard Deployment**
Appeals Court Grants Trump Temporary Hold on California National Guard Deployment**
Court intervention allows National Guard troops to remain in Los Angeles amid legal challenges against the Trump administration's actions.**
An appeals court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the continued deployment of California's National Guard troops in Los Angeles, countering a previous federal judge's decision that deemed the action illegal. The ruling came just hours after Judge Charles Breyer mandated that control of the National Guard be restored to California's state governor, Gavin Newsom. The Trump administration had deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to quell what the president described as unrest related to immigration enforcement.
California officials, including Governor Newsom, opposed the deployment, characterizing it as unnecessary and provocative. Newsom publicly emphasized the importance of keeping the military off city streets, stating on social media that the court's confirmation reflects the consensus that law enforcement belongs in civilian sectors rather than military oversight.
The legal dispute hinges on whether the Trump administration adhered to congressional law regarding National Guard deployments. In his earlier ruling, Judge Breyer stated that Trump's actions did not align with legal mandates. However, the appeals court intervened, allowing an ongoing examination of the case while the National Guard remains active in the area.
During court proceedings, a Justice Department attorney contended that Newsom was adequately informed of the troop deployment order, while Judge Breyer clarified the constitutional limits of presidential authority over the National Guard. This legal entanglement is notable, as the last instance of a president deploying National Guard troops without a governor's consent dates back over fifty years, amid civil rights upheavals.
Despite the turbulent scenes in Los Angeles, which included numerous protests and arrests, California's legal argument suggests that the situation does not constitute a rebellion or insurrection. The protests, described as mostly peaceful by some observers, serve as a backdrop for this complex legal confrontation between state and federal powers.
The appeals court will convene for a hearing on the matter, potentially setting the stage for further legal battles over the authority and control of state military resources. The outcome could have significant implications not only for California but for how military resources are utilized within the context of domestic policy and civil rights.
