Newsom vs. Trump judge orders L.A. troop deployment records handed over

The Trump administration is due to give a cache of documents, photos, internal reports and other evidence to detail the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday, putting a procedural victory to the state in his struggle to slow down thousands of soldiers under the command of the president.

Ordering an “accelerated and limited discovery”, the main district judge Charles R. Breyer of the Federal Court of San Francisco has also authorized California lawyers to deposit key administration officials and indicated that he could examine questions over the duration of troops under federal control.

The Ministry of Justice opposed this decision, saying that it had “no possibility of responding”.

The decision follows a spicy loss for the state of the 9th Circuit Court of American Appeals on Thursday, when a appeal committee canceled the temporary prohibition order of Breyer who would have made control of the troops to the Californian leaders.

Writing for the court, judge Mark R. Bennett de Honolulu said that the judiciary should largely rely on the president to decide whether a “rebellion” was underway and if the Protestant civilians against immigration agents had sufficiently hampered the deportations to justify the aid of the National Guard or the Navies.

Bennett wrote that the president has the power to take measures under a law which “authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when” the president is not able with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States “.

But none of the two courts has yet expressed on California’s major request: by helping the immigration raids, troops under the command of Trump violated the law of 1878 Posse Comitatus, which prohibits soldiers from enforcing civil laws.

Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of Northern California ACLU, argued that the White House abuse of law after the civil war – known in legal jargon under the name of PCA – by ensuring that soldiers support immigration and customs operations.

“There is no dispute that what the National Guard is doing at the moment is prohibited by the ACP – legally, it is absolutely necessary to be,” said Agarwal. “Going out with ice officers in the community and playing a role in individual ice raids resembles what the posse comitatus act has been designed to prohibit.”

In his ordinance of June 12, Breyer wrote that such a complaint was “premature”, saying that there was not yet sufficient evidence to assess whether this law had been infringement.

The 9th circuit agreed.

“Although we believe that the president probably has the power to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision deals with the nature of the activities in which the Federal National Guard can commit,” wrote Bennett. “Before the district court, the complainants argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Comitatus law. … We do not express ourselves any opinion on this subject.

Now, California has permission to force these evidence of the government, as well as to deposit figures such as Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., director of the Ice field office in Los Angeles, and Major-General Niave F. Knell, who directs operations for the Army Department in charge of “Defense of the countries of the country”.

With a few exceptions, such evidence would immediately become public, another victory for the Californians, said Agarwal.

“As the facts are developed in this case, I think it will be clearer for everyone how this invocation of the National Guard was based,” she said.

In its briefing on Monday, the Trump administration argued that the troops “simply fulfilled a protection function”, without enforcing the law.

“Nothing in the preliminary file of the injunction plansly supports an assertion that the custody and the Marines are engaged in the execution of federal laws rather than efforts to protect the staff and the goods used in the execution of federal laws,” said the request of the Ministry of Justice.

The federal government also said that even if the troops applied the law, this would not violate the Comitatus posse law – and if that was the case, the North District of California would only have the limited power to reign in this regard.

“Given the conclusion of the ninth circuit, it would be illogical to consider that, although the president could call the National Guard when he cannot” with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States “, the custody, once federalized, is prohibited to” execute[ing] The laws ” said the motion.

For Agarwal and other experts in civil freedoms, the coming weeks will be crucial.

“There is this atmospheric rubicon that we have crossed when we say on the basis of vandalism and people who launch things on cars, which can justify soldiers wandering our streets,” said the lawyer. “There were more troubles when the Lakers won the championship.”