In a significant legal decision, a US appeals court has affirmed President Donald Trump's authority to retain control over approximately 4,000 National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, despite pushback from city leaders and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The troops were initially deployed in response to protests spurred by Trump’s immigration policies, which local officials criticized as provocations rather than protective measures.
**Court Upholds Trump's Control Over National Guard in Los Angeles Amid Controversy**
**Court Upholds Trump's Control Over National Guard in Los Angeles Amid Controversy**
A recent ruling allows President Trump to maintain National Guard deployment in LA, sparking backlash from local officials and Governor Newsom.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Trump on Thursday, stating he acted within his rights to mobilize the National Guard to secure federal personnel and property, labeling it a “big win” for the president. This ruling reverses a previous decision by Judge Charles Breyer, who concluded that Trump’s deployment did not comply with congressional regulations governing the National Guard.
Judge Breyer had mandated that control of the California National Guard should revert to the state governor, citing illegal actions by Trump. However, his ruling was stayed until June 13 to accommodate the Trump administration's appeal. The appellate ruling clarified that even though Trump did not issue the federal order through California's governor, it did not hinder his legal authority to enact such mobilization.
Trump expressed his satisfaction with the verdict on social media, framing the ruling as essential to safeguarding citizens if local law enforcement falls short. He emphasized the importance of federal protection during times of unrest across the nation.
Governor Newsom, on the other hand, criticized the court's decision, asserting it poses a challenge to democracy. He vociferously stated that Trump should not operate without accountability, proclaiming, "Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law."
Under this ruling, the 4,000 troops will continue their mission, which the Trump administration states is to protect federal immigration agencies and public safety during ongoing operations and raids. Additionally, Trump has dispatched 700 Marines to the area, despite widespread concerns from state officials. Historically, such military deployments without gubernatorial consent have not occurred since the civil rights movement over five decades ago.
As the situation evolves, the legal and societal implications of this unprecedented military action remain a contentious topic in California and across the United States.
Judge Breyer had mandated that control of the California National Guard should revert to the state governor, citing illegal actions by Trump. However, his ruling was stayed until June 13 to accommodate the Trump administration's appeal. The appellate ruling clarified that even though Trump did not issue the federal order through California's governor, it did not hinder his legal authority to enact such mobilization.
Trump expressed his satisfaction with the verdict on social media, framing the ruling as essential to safeguarding citizens if local law enforcement falls short. He emphasized the importance of federal protection during times of unrest across the nation.
Governor Newsom, on the other hand, criticized the court's decision, asserting it poses a challenge to democracy. He vociferously stated that Trump should not operate without accountability, proclaiming, "Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law."
Under this ruling, the 4,000 troops will continue their mission, which the Trump administration states is to protect federal immigration agencies and public safety during ongoing operations and raids. Additionally, Trump has dispatched 700 Marines to the area, despite widespread concerns from state officials. Historically, such military deployments without gubernatorial consent have not occurred since the civil rights movement over five decades ago.
As the situation evolves, the legal and societal implications of this unprecedented military action remain a contentious topic in California and across the United States.
