**A recent U.S. appeals court decision permits President Trump to retain control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, despite pushback from state leaders and accusations of overreach.**
**Court Upholds Trump's Authority Over National Guard in L.A. Amid Controversy**
**Court Upholds Trump's Authority Over National Guard in L.A. Amid Controversy**
**The ruling enables continued National Guard deployment in Los Angeles, igniting further political tensions.**
The U.S. appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump retains the authority to oversee National Guard troops he deployed in Los Angeles, amidst rising dissent from local leaders and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployments, involving approximately 4,000 troops, were initiated following widespread protests sparked by Trump's immigration policy.
The court's decision, announced Thursday, supports Trump's efforts to maintain order during civil unrest, with the president asserting it as a significant victory for protecting federal assets and personnel. This ruling counters a prior decision from a lower court where Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard unlawful, stating he did not follow congressional guidelines.
In the previous ruling, Breyer mandated that control of the California National Guard should revert to the state's governor. However, the appeals court delayed this order until June 13, allowing the Trump administration sufficient time to appeal, which they promptly executed.
Unanimously, the three-judge panel found that Trump's inability to issue a federalization order through California's governor did not impede his legal rights to summon the National Guard. In his response on social media, Trump praised the judicial outcome, emphasizing a broader national responsibility for security.
California's Governor Newsom contested this stance, arguing that the court justly rejected Trump’s assertion of unregulated control over the National Guard, reinforcing that “Donald Trump is not a king.” The court's ruling opens the path for the continued deployment of troops intended to assist federal immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, a move that the governor vehemently opposes.
Additionally, Trump has authorized the deployment of 700 Marines to the city, disregarding local government objections and echoing the gravity of utilizing military forces without gubernatorial consent—a practice not observed since the civil rights struggle over 50 years ago. The implications of this ruling intensify the discourse surrounding executive power and military oversight during civil disputes.
The court's decision, announced Thursday, supports Trump's efforts to maintain order during civil unrest, with the president asserting it as a significant victory for protecting federal assets and personnel. This ruling counters a prior decision from a lower court where Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard unlawful, stating he did not follow congressional guidelines.
In the previous ruling, Breyer mandated that control of the California National Guard should revert to the state's governor. However, the appeals court delayed this order until June 13, allowing the Trump administration sufficient time to appeal, which they promptly executed.
Unanimously, the three-judge panel found that Trump's inability to issue a federalization order through California's governor did not impede his legal rights to summon the National Guard. In his response on social media, Trump praised the judicial outcome, emphasizing a broader national responsibility for security.
California's Governor Newsom contested this stance, arguing that the court justly rejected Trump’s assertion of unregulated control over the National Guard, reinforcing that “Donald Trump is not a king.” The court's ruling opens the path for the continued deployment of troops intended to assist federal immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, a move that the governor vehemently opposes.
Additionally, Trump has authorized the deployment of 700 Marines to the city, disregarding local government objections and echoing the gravity of utilizing military forces without gubernatorial consent—a practice not observed since the civil rights struggle over 50 years ago. The implications of this ruling intensify the discourse surrounding executive power and military oversight during civil disputes.
