The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to keep Los Angeles troops in the hands of the Trump administration, while California objections filed a lawsuit in federal court, finding that the president’s power to deploy troops in U.S. cities is not a “uncensored” power.
“We disagree with the defendant’s main argument that the president’s decision to decide the federal California National Guard members is completely isolated from judicial review,” Trump-appointed Honolulu judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the appeal panel. “Nevertheless, we were convinced that under the long precedent of interpreting statutory predecessors…our review of the decision must be highly respected.”
California leaders vowed to fight back in federal court.
“This case is far from over,” Artie. General Rob Bonta said in response to the ruling. “While the court did not immediately provide relief to Angelnos today, we still have confidence in our arguments and will continue to fight.”
“We will raise a challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of citizens by U.S. soldiers,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said.
Legal scholars say the decision is expected — especially because the 9th Circuit has transformed from the country’s most liberal person to one of the most “balanced” since the beginning of Trump’s first term.
“For the people, understand how much power Congress gives to the president,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at the University of Central Florida.
“Judges for hundreds of years have great respect for the president in national security decisions, [including] Merriam added that the military is used. There is no other area of law that a president or an executive receives such respect. ”
The appeals panel harshly questioned both sides at a hearing Tuesday, appearing to reject the federal government’s claim that the court has no authority to review the president’s actions, while also weakening California’s claim that Trump has surpassed his power to send troops to Los Angeles in Los Angeles to correct “rebellion against American authority.”
“The three judges seem to be skeptical of the arguments each party has made in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
“I’m impressed by the problem,” she continued. “I think it’s a fair question, I think it’s a tough one. I think the judge is fighting the right question.”
The ruling largely returned the issue to U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer on Thursday.
Unlike Breyer, who returned the National Guard temporary restraining order to California on June 12, the Court of Appeals largely avoided the question of whether the facts at the scene in Los Angeles constituted a “rebellion.”
Instead, the ruling focuses on the limitations of presidential power.
Bennett’s point of view directly refutes the argument of assistant Artie. General Brett Shumate at Tuesday’s hearing – Federal National Guard Force’s decision “cannot be reviewed”.
“The defendant believes that this language excludes censorship,” the judge wrote.[But Supreme Court precedent] It does not force us to accept the position of the federal government that the president can come to the Federal Police based on any evidence and that the courts will not be able to review decisions that are obviously ridiculous or malicious. ”
He also cited the 1932 Supreme Court citation in the ruling of Sterling and Constantine, writing “[t]His nature [president’s] Power must also mean that there is a permissible honest judgment of the measures taken to meet force, suppress violence and restore order. ”
Shumate told the judge that he was not aware of the case when Bennett asked him at a hearing Tuesday.
“In this case, it was a key situation, and the fact that he didn’t know it was extraordinary,” Goitein said.
Merriam agrees–to a little bit.
“It’s our nightmare in law school – it’s my nightmare as an appellate judge,” the scholar said.
But, “Attorneys representing the United States do not intend to talk about martial law in front of the 9th Circuit, in fact, it is actually a good thing.”
One thing that Thursday’s ruling didn’t touch on is whether the government violated the POSSE COMITATUS Act and enforced the law on behalf of the military as civilians, a charge raised in California’s initial complaint, but Breyer effectively filed the charge last week.
“The POSSE COMITATUS ACT claim has not been resolved yet because it was not mature in nature last Thursday,” Goitein said. “It’s mature now.
“Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government in all respects, we can see a ruling from the District Court next week that could limit what the troops can do locally,” she said.
Meanwhile, residents of increasingly quiet Los Angeles will have to live with an increasing number of federal forces.
“[Congress] “There is no fact that rebellion is limited to a specific type of fact,” Merriam said. [Angelenos] It might be said, “This is crazy! There is no rebellion in Los Angeles at the moment,” and that’s where we are related to the law. ”
