• Trump allowed to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to LA

    From Biased Journalism@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 20 03:20:14 2025
    XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    http://apnews.com
    Trump allowed to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to LA | AP
    News

    Updated 9:30 PM PDT, June 19, 2025

    LOS ANGELES (AP) - An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald
    Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.

    The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California
    Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard
    without the governor's permission since 1965.

    In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
    Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.

    It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control
    of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence
    to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters.

    "The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the
    National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down' several federal officers and
    threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the
    officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure
    of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by
    protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The
    federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant."

    It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the
    governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required
    by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order.

    Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a
    "BIG WIN."

    He wrote that "all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people,
    need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done."

    Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one
    aspect of the decision.

    "The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants
    with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,"
    Newsom said. "The President is not a king and is not above the law. We
    will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian
    use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens."

    The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to
    deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

    Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore
    order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be
    winding down.

    Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first
    term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that
    presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that
    courts should be reluctant to step in.

    The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an
    early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

    Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said
    only allows presidents can take control during times of "rebellion or
    danger of a rebellion."

    "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,'" wrote Breyer,
    who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to
    retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

    The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess
    the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the
    appeals court.

    The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in
    federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
    --

    Created with https://notepad-plus-plus.org/ $Free
    Posted Through Usenet Server: http://news.individual.net/ $10 annually
    Using Forte Agent 8.00 news reader $29 for the life of product ==================================================
    Anyone that isn't confused doesn't really
    understand the situation.
    ~Edward R. Murrow USA WWII Correspondent ==================================================

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From a425couple@21:1/5 to Biased Journalism on Fri Jun 20 07:58:49 2025
    XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, seattle.politics
    XPost: alt.law-enforcement, rec.aviation.military

    On 6/20/25 03:20, Biased Journalism wrote:

    http://apnews.com
    Trump allowed to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to LA | AP News

    Updated 9:30 PM PDT, June 19, 2025

    LOS ANGELES (AP) - An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.

    The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California
    Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Very big win for Trump.
    3 to 0, in what often considered most liberal Appeals Court.
    When rioters are assaulting Federal officers and local authorities
    are not stopping it, the POTUS can call out under his authority
    the states National Guard.

    Again, just like when Newsom was useless during wild fires,
    he was useless in this major domestic disturbance and the
    President was right to take control.

    The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard
    without the governor's permission since 1965.

    In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
    Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.

    It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control
    of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence
    to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters.

    "The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the
    National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down' several federal officers and
    threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure
    of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The
    federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant."

    It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required
    by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order.

    Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a
    "BIG WIN."

    He wrote that "all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done."

    Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision.

    "The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,"
    Newsom said. "The President is not a king and is not above the law. We
    will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian
    use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens."

    The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

    Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore
    order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down.

    Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that
    courts should be reluctant to step in.

    The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

    Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of "rebellion or
    danger of a rebellion."

    "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to
    retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

    The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess
    the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.

    The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)