The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear a panel’s order authorizing the deployment of National Guard troops to California, prompting dissenting judges to write lengthy warnings about the danger the United States now faces.
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
Read the statement and dissent from the dissenters en banc here:
“We are not dealing with an armed uprising, a foreign invasion, a civil war, the refusal of a state government to enforce the decisions of a federal court, or a strike that threatens to paralyze the nation,” she wrote. “Instead, the President’s purported basis for federalizing the National Guard is to respond to less than two days of sporadic protests involving low-level violence and property damage over which state, local, and federal law enforcement had jurisdiction. Never in our long history has a President attempted to pass off such ordinary circumstances as an emergency justifying the national deployment of military forces.”
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
Read the statement and dissent from the dissenters en banc here:
The dissenting justices, led by Clinton-appointed Judge Marsha Berzon, recognize the oddity of requesting a rehearing of a preliminary stay granted before the case enters the merits phase. But, she wrote, the danger of erring this far in favor of presidential deference has already snowballed, as Trump sent troops to Portland, Washington, D.C., and Chicago over the objection of local officials and promised to do the same in other blue cities imminently.
“We are not dealing with an armed uprising, a foreign invasion, a civil war, the refusal of a state government to enforce the decisions of a federal court, or a strike that threatens to paralyze the nation,” she wrote. “Instead, the President’s purported basis for federalizing the National Guard is to respond to less than two days of sporadic protests involving low-level violence and property damage over which state, local, and federal law enforcement had jurisdiction. Never in our long history has a President attempted to pass off such ordinary circumstances as an emergency justifying the national deployment of military forces.”
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
Read the statement and dissent from the dissenters en banc here:
A single judge had requested the vote to rehear the case, after a panel — made up of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee — stayed a district court order blocking the Guard’s deployment.
The dissenting justices, led by Clinton-appointed Judge Marsha Berzon, recognize the oddity of requesting a rehearing of a preliminary stay granted before the case enters the merits phase. But, she wrote, the danger of erring this far in favor of presidential deference has already snowballed, as Trump sent troops to Portland, Washington, D.C., and Chicago over the objection of local officials and promised to do the same in other blue cities imminently.
“We are not dealing with an armed uprising, a foreign invasion, a civil war, the refusal of a state government to enforce the decisions of a federal court, or a strike that threatens to paralyze the nation,” she wrote. “Instead, the President’s purported basis for federalizing the National Guard is to respond to less than two days of sporadic protests involving low-level violence and property damage over which state, local, and federal law enforcement had jurisdiction. Never in our long history has a President attempted to pass off such ordinary circumstances as an emergency justifying the national deployment of military forces.”
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
Read the statement and dissent from the dissenters en banc here:
The dissenters point out the historical anomalousness of the current moment, namely that the statute used by President Trump to call up the Guard has only been used once in the 122 years since it was signed into law. The fact that many protests took place during this period, they point out, is further proof that the law was not intended to be used in this way.
A single judge had requested the vote to rehear the case, after a panel — made up of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee — stayed a district court order blocking the Guard’s deployment.
The dissenting justices, led by Clinton-appointed Judge Marsha Berzon, recognize the oddity of requesting a rehearing of a preliminary stay granted before the case enters the merits phase. But, she wrote, the danger of erring this far in favor of presidential deference has already snowballed, as Trump sent troops to Portland, Washington, D.C., and Chicago over the objection of local officials and promised to do the same in other blue cities imminently.
“We are not dealing with an armed uprising, a foreign invasion, a civil war, the refusal of a state government to enforce the decisions of a federal court, or a strike that threatens to paralyze the nation,” she wrote. “Instead, the President’s purported basis for federalizing the National Guard is to respond to less than two days of sporadic protests involving low-level violence and property damage over which state, local, and federal law enforcement had jurisdiction. Never in our long history has a President attempted to pass off such ordinary circumstances as an emergency justifying the national deployment of military forces.”
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
Read the statement and dissent from the dissenters en banc here:
“The democratic ideals that our nation has consistently promoted over the past quarter of a millennium will be gravely undermined by permitting the deployment of military force and weapons of war against American citizens on American soil on the fragile bases advanced here for this use of executive power,” Justice Ronald Gould, a Clinton appointee, wrote in a separate dissent from the panel.
The dissenters point out the historical anomalousness of the current moment, namely that the statute used by President Trump to call up the Guard has only been used once in the 122 years since it was signed into law. The fact that many protests took place during this period, they point out, is further proof that the law was not intended to be used in this way.
A single judge had requested the vote to rehear the case, after a panel — made up of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee — stayed a district court order blocking the Guard’s deployment.
The dissenting justices, led by Clinton-appointed Judge Marsha Berzon, recognize the oddity of requesting a rehearing of a preliminary stay granted before the case enters the merits phase. But, she wrote, the danger of erring this far in favor of presidential deference has already snowballed, as Trump sent troops to Portland, Washington, D.C., and Chicago over the objection of local officials and promised to do the same in other blue cities imminently.
“We are not dealing with an armed uprising, a foreign invasion, a civil war, the refusal of a state government to enforce the decisions of a federal court, or a strike that threatens to paralyze the nation,” she wrote. “Instead, the President’s purported basis for federalizing the National Guard is to respond to less than two days of sporadic protests involving low-level violence and property damage over which state, local, and federal law enforcement had jurisdiction. Never in our long history has a President attempted to pass off such ordinary circumstances as an emergency justifying the national deployment of military forces.”
The same panel heard oral arguments in that case Thursday. Elsewhere, a request for a rehearing in the same circuit court arises from the Guard’s deployment in Portland. And the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court, after a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order blocking the deployment in Chicago.
“The Supreme Court’s recent record does not give much reason to hope that it will take a cautious approach to the legal issues here, or that it will consider reining in a president who has massively overstepped his authority,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security program, told TPM. “I expect a decision from the Supreme Court, probably on the shadow docket, that is favorable to the federal government.”
