Appeals court questions judges' ability to review Trump's LA National Guard deployment
A group of appellate court judges is pondering what role the courts should play in determining whether President Donald Trump can keep control of the National Guard to protect immigration enforcement agents and suppress protesters in Los Angeles.
Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over the raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on June 17 on whether to continue Trump's mobilization of the troops.
It comes less than a week after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted California Gov. Gavin Newsom a temporary restraining order, which would have blocked Trump's deployment of the California National Guard and returned control of the troops to Newsom. The governor, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and other leaders repeatedly claimed that Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it wasn't necessary.
The appellate court judges temporarily halted the federal judge's order on June 12.
On June 17, the three-judge panel quizzed lawyers from the Trump administration and Newsom on whether they should factor into Trump's decision at all.
Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate told the panel that Breyer had "improperly second-guessed the president's judgment" about the need to call up the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel from "mob violence" in Los Angeles.
"There is no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision," Shumate said.
California's attorney argues troops weren't needed
During the hourlong hearing on June 17, California's attorney, Samuel Harbourt, asked the appeals court to deny the Trump administration's motion. He called the federalization of the National Guard an "unprecedented, unlawful executive action."
Harbourt argued that the governor doesn't have any problems giving the president "some sort of deference" for implementing federal law, but that there's nothing to defer to in the case since Newsom did not consent to the National Guard's activation as typically mandated by law.
"There's really nothing to defer to because the president has not, and the defendants have made no attempt whatsoever to provide an argument or evidence that they even contemplated more modest measures to the extreme response in calling in the National Guard and militarizing the situation," Harbourt said.
Harbourt did say that Los Angeles has seen "certain episodes of unrest and even violence in recent days, including violence directed at state and local law enforcement officials." But Harbourt added that local and state law enforcement have "strongly condemned these acts, and it has responded forcefully to them."
The attorney urged the judges to remove the National Guard from Los Angeles so that they can return to their regular duties, including responding to emergencies such as wildfires. Harbourt concluded the troops' presence is "causing harm to our nation's broader democratic tradition of the separation of the military from civilian affairs."
The hearing came as local organizers vowed to continue protesting against immigration raids, despite demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles having calmed and Bass lifting a curfew in the area.
Trump's attorneys say the president has 'unreviewable' powers
Meanwhile, Shumate said the appeals court should indeed grant the request for a stay of the lower court's order. Shumate said the lower court's ruling would have blocked Trump's deployment of the California National Guard and returned control of the troops to Newsom.
Shumate argued that Trump complied with the statute by informing the general in charge of the troops of his decision and that the president does have the authority to call in the National Guard.
Shumate also said before the lower court's ruling that the president’s decisions are not subject to judicial review.
The attorney said there is "documented record of sustained, ongoing mob violence." Shumate told the three-panel judges on June 17 that on June 6 more than "1,000 violent protesters" had been outside a federal building that required the National Guard.
"They were essential to protecting that building," Shumate said.
Shumate then argued to the appeal court judges that Trump has "unreviewable" powers as the commander-in-chief to deploy troops for any reason he sees fit.
Hearings show 'interesting paradigm of power'
The three judges, who consist of two judicial appointees of Trump and one of former President Joe Biden, did not issue a ruling but seemed to indicate they might keep the current stay in place.
The two Trump appointees, Judges Mark J. Bennett and Eric D. Miller, appeared doubtful of the Trump administration's claim that courts can't review Trump's decision to invoke a statute allowing him to activate the National Guard. But they also appeared to lean into the notion that the occasional violent protests were enough to warrant Trump's decision.
And the Biden appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, had some doubts about the case made by Harbourt, Newsom's attorney.
Bennett suggested that the court could act before a hearing that Breyer has scheduled in the case for June 20.
The arguments in court is another episode in "an interesting paradigm of power," between Trump and Newsom as the governor is trying to assert his role as a major leader in America's most populous state that also has the world's fourth-largest economy, said Brian Sobel, a longtime political analyst based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
"Newsom is trying to establish with people that he’s a national player, that he’s presidential-worthy because he’s willing to take Trump on," Sobel told Paste BN. "He’s choosing battles where he can have similar stature as the president, where he can assert his power and appear almost like a co-equal."
Hearing takes place as LA protests have simmered, curfew lifted
Los Angeles police have said that more than 500 arrests have been made related to protest activity since June 7. The June 17 appeals court hearing comes as the Los Angeles mayor announced that she lifted the city's curfew.
"The curfew, coupled with ongoing crime prevention efforts, have been largely successful in protecting stores, restaurants, businesses and residential communities from bad actors who do not care about the immigrant community," Bass said in a statement. "I am lifting the curfew effective today, and as we continue quickly adapting to chaos coming from Washington, and I will be prepared to reissue a curfew if needed. My priority will continue to be ensuring safety, stability and support in the downtown neighborhoods."
LAPD 'will maintain a strong presence'
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said this week that his department was "not letting our guard down" with the then-adjusted curfew hours. McDonnell said the decision showed the progress authorities have made in reducing crime and vandalism within the city's curfew zone.
"The curfew has been an effective tool in helping us maintain public safety in the downtown Los Angeles area and deter those looking to exploit peaceful protests for criminal activity," McDonnell said in a statement. "The LAPD will maintain a strong presence in the area and continue to monitor conditions closely to protect lives, uphold the right to lawful assembly, and safeguard property."
Bass first announced the six-day curfew on June 10 in a stretch of downtown Los Angeles where the protests have largely taken place, "to stop the vandalism, to stop the looting."
Contributing: Reuters