This browser does not support the Video element.
Judge deliberating legality of Trump's National Guard deployment to LA
U.S. Judge Charles Breyer began deliberations Wednesday, after hearing three days of arguments and testimony in the federal case involving California Governor Gavin Newsom's request for a permanent injunction against the Trump administration's deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles against the governor's wishes.
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in San Francisco began deliberations Wednesday in the case Newsom v. Trump, which centers on the question of whether the Trump administration's deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June violated a federal law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, that bars the president from using military troops for domestic law enforcement.
The trial began Monday and final arguments wrapped up around 11 AM Wednesday.
Details on the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act can be found here in a link to Congress's website.
California's lawsuit
California is asking U.S. Judge Charles Breyer for a permanent injunction. In court, state attorneys argued that California does have standing to challenge military actions on domestic soil, and stated that there is an ongoing violation of the law, with a military presence of some 300 troops being maintained in Los Angeles with no clear threat.
"Exhibit 39 is a document that shows defendants coached law enforcement to substitute the word 'protection' for 'security' because they knew the word 'security' would violate the Posse Comitatus Act...it simply shows they knew it was unlawful," California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong argued.
Trump administration's arguments
For the defense, attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice argued that President Trump has the right to intervene in order to protect federal assets.
"The question is whether the conduct was itself blatantly lawless, and what the record showed is the Department of Defense was sensitive to the Posse Comitatus Act, provided training and direction to stay within the confines of that and other laws," a U.S. Department of Justice attorney told Judge Breyer.
U.S. Judge Charles Breyer
"One of the problems is we really don't have much precedent for this kind of situation," David Levine, a professor at UC College of the Law in San Francisco, said.
Levine says Judge Breyer seemed receptive to one part of the federal attorneys' arguments, focusing on protection of federal buildings and property.
"I could easily see Judge Breyer saying it is okay if the troops are protecting those properties, and maybe a tight perimeter around them, but what might be problematic is when those same troops go out with law enforcement," Levine said.
In court, Judge Breyer asked the U.S. attorneys whether there are any legal limits on the length of military deployment past the initial response to a crisis. He also asked why, nearly 2 months after the violence in June, some 300 troops still remain in Los Angeles, and questioned the validity of providing military assistance to law enforcement assignments that inherently carry some risk.
"Congress acted as it did in 1878... They pulled out the military, not because the laws were being perfectly executed in the South. They pulled the military out because they didn't want them to execute the laws," Judge Breyer stated.
"I do think he'll probably want to rule relatively quickly, as he did with the preliminary injunction, but I think he'll take the care to write a careful opinion, because he knows it's going up to the Ninth Circuit [court of appeals] and probably the U.S. Supreme Court," Levine said.
After the trial arguments ended, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement. Bonta said, "I remain confident. Our legal team did a great job.... We made a compelling case — backed by facts and specifics — and we look forward to getting a decision in the near future."
The attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.