9th Circuit sides with Trump administration on L.A. troop deployment

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave the troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while the objections of California are pleaded before the Federal Court, judging that the president had a large – but not revisable – the power to deploy the army in American cities.

“We do not agree with the main argument of defendants that the president’s decision to federate the members of the California National Guard … is completely isolated from the judicial journal,” wrote Mark J. Bennett d’Honolulu, appointed by Trump, for the Appeal Committee. “Nevertheless, we are convinced that, under a long -standing precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor … Our examination of this decision must be very proceedings.”

California leaders promised to retaliate before the Federal Court.

“This case is far from over,” Atty. General Rob Bonta said in response to the decision. “Although the court has not granted immediate relief to Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”

“We are going to advance our challenge to the authoritarian use of President Trump of American military soldiers against citizens,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.

Legal researchers said the decision was expected – especially since the 9th circuit has gone from the country’s most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the start of Trump’s first term.

“It is extremely important that the people understand how the president of power gave to the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, professor of legal studies at the Central University of Florida and military judge on appeal.

“Judges for hundreds of years have now granted extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] Use of the army, “added Merriam.” There is no other area of ​​law where the president or the executive obtains this level of deference. “”

The Appeal Committee strongly questioned the two parties at the hearing on Tuesday, seeming to reject the affirmation of the federal government according to which the courts were not allowed to review the actions of the president, while undergoing the assertion of California according to which Trump had overcome his authority in sending troops to repress a “rebellion against the authority of the United States”.

“The three judges seemed to be skeptical about the arguments that each party made in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, principal director of the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the University of New York.

“I was impressed by the questions,” she continued. “I think these are fair questions, I think these are difficult questions. I think the judges struggled with the right problems. ”

The decision Thursday seemed to return the question to the American district judge Charles R. Breyer.

His calendar – At the end of the evening the federal federal foliaire of Juneteenth – was probably intended to give the lower court a chance to review the decision before Friday hearing in San Francisco, where California sought to prevent Trump from using federalized soldiers to help the immigration raids, said court observers.

Unlike Breyer, whose temporary prohibition order on June 12 would have made control of the National Guard in California, the Court of Appeal largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles represented a “rebellion”.

Instead, the decision focused on the limits of the presidential power.

Bennett’s opinion directly refuted the argument – made by the Assistant Atty. General Brett Shumate at the Tuesday hearing – that the decision to federate the troops of the National Guard was “invisible”.

“The defendants argue that this language prevents revision,” wrote the judge. “”[But Supreme Court precedent] Do not force us to accept the position of the federal government according to which the president could federate the national guard according to any evidence, and that the courts would not be able to review a decision which was obviously absurd or taken in bad faith. »»

He also quoted at length the decision of the Supreme Court of 1932 in Sterling against Constantine, writing “[t]The nature of [president’s] Power also necessarily implies that there is an authorized range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in matters of force, to remove the violence and the restoration of the order. »»

Shumate told the judge that he did not know the case when Bennett asked him questions at the start of Tuesday’s hearing.

“This is a key case in this case line, and the fact that it was not aware of it is extraordinary,” said Goitein.

Merriam accepted – up to a point.

“It is a nightmare that we have at the Faculty of Law – it is a nightmare that I had as an appeal judge,” said the researcher.

However, “it is actually a good thing that the lawyer representing the United States did not plan to talk about martial law before the 9th circuit,” said Merriam.

One thing that the decision on Thursday did not affect is whether the administration violated the Comitatus law possesses by going beyond the military to act as the application of the civil law – an allegation of California leveled in its initial complaint but that Breyer actually filed last week.

“The complaint posse Comitatus Act was not resolved because it was essentially not mature last Thursday”, when the troops had just arrived, said Goitein. “It’s mature now.”

“Even if the 9th circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a decision of the district court next week which could limit what the troops can do on the ground,” she said.

Friday morning, in court, Breyer asked the two parties to inform him of whether he or the 9th circuit had the power to reign on this issue, leaving the question open at least on Monday.

In the meantime, residents of an increasingly calm Los Angeles will have to live with the growing number of federal troops.

“”[Congress] has not limited the rebellion to specific types of facts, “said Merriam. [Angelenos] might say, “It’s crazy! There is no current rebellion in Los Angeles at the moment: “This is where we are with the law.”