The deployment of trump of military troops in Los Angeles was illegal, judges the rules

A federal judge of San Francisco prevented the soldiers from helping the arrests of immigration and other civilian forces in South California on Tuesday, warning a “increasing national police force with the president as chief” in an order passionate to take effect on September 12.

In a 52 -page decision early Tuesday morning, senior district judge Charles R. Breyer prevented the administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training or using” California troops to engage in the application of civil laws – a decision that could have large -scale consequences for the use by Trump of the national army.

“Why is the National Guard still there?” Breyer asked for obvious irritation at the trial last month.

“What is the threat today?” What was the threat yesterday or two weeks ago that allowed it? ” The judge said. “I try to see if there are limits, limits to the use of a federal force.”

The government has described California’s costume a “hail pass” and promised to fight the decision.

The decision comes as hundreds of soldiers are now patrolling in the American capital, following an order from the president in mid-August deploying the National Guard to write crime to DC

Thousands of others could soon be deployed in other American cities, the administration warned.

About 300 soldiers remain in the streets of Los Angeles, where thousands of troops from the National Guard and hundreds of navies were deployed in early June to stifle a fierce protest in the face of immigration raids.

Breyer’s order would strictly limit what these remaining forces can do. The Ministry of Justice said it would immediately call on the decision, but ensuring suspension until the 9th circuit could reign it later this month.

Experts say that the judicial dust that followed, it will clarify the previous one in a troubled corner of the law. But some warn that he could also discover a roadmap for future deployments in the United States cities

“If Breyer is on the side of Newsom and the 9th circuit next to Trump, we now have a game book to use the National Guard and perhaps the military across the country,” said Mark P. Nevitt, professor of law at Emory University and one of the main experts in the country in law at the heart of the case.

“He would have a decision of the most liberal circuit in America by giving the green light for this deployment,” said Nevitt. “It would make a bad law for the country.”

It was the second time this summer that Governor Gavin Newsom has been able to extend the presidential power he sought to restrict when he put an action against Trump for the deployment of troops in June.

On June 9, Breyer decided to go beyond the president of the command of federalized troops, saying that he had exceeded his authority under the dark sub-section of the American code. The 9th circuit quickly reversed this decision, noting that the president had a large discretionary power on national deployments.

“He uses these statutory mechanisms of the shadow to arrive where he wants to go without making the harsh political decision to invoke the law on insurrection,” said Nevitt. “His lawyers rub the American code in search of executive power.”

From now on, the Court of Appeal must weigh whether the same presidential discretion extends to violations of the Comitatus law, a law of the 19th century which prohibits soldiers from enforcing civil laws in all the most extreme circumstances.

The Ministry of Justice maintains that once the president invokes his almost total authority to deploy them, almost all that soldiers could do to “protect” federal police are authorized under the law.

“You say because the president says it, so what is it?” Said Breyer. “In other words, we will see federal officers everywhere if the president determines that there is a threat to the security of a federal agent.”

The argument sometimes turned what Breyer called the logic “Alice in Wonderland”: lawyers of the Ministry of Justice said that the two troops of Los Angeles had rigorously followed the law And that the law did not apply to them.

“Why did I spend a day watching the slideshow after the slide and the regulations after regulation and reporting after reporting … Compliance with the posse comitatus act if the posse comitatus act is not relevant?” Breyer broken. “Maybe you should tell your client that he doesn’t have to follow [it] If it’s your point of view.

Likewise, lawyers for the administration told Trump that Trump could not be prosecuted for violating criminal law. But either he cannot be prosecuted by breaking it up, they said, thanks to the decision of the presidential immunity of the Supreme Court last year.

“So there is no remedy,” said Breyer.

Experts say that the law is not clear.

“The legality of all this is really messy,” said Nevitt. “Without doubt, California may not have standing to even reach the bottom of the case.”

Others were more optimistic about California.

“This is an opportunity to give more meaning to a notoriously vague law,” said Dan Maurer, professor of law at Ohio Northern University. “It is important to see what the president can get away with.”

The trial also revealed new amazing details on some of the most controversial actions of soldiers in Southern California this summer, including their participation in a July MacArthur Park who rapped residents and city officials.

On August 12, Major -General Scott Marshall Sherman testified that the agents of the border patrol had initially planned to aim for the park on Father’s Day – a decision that the military rejected, affirming that the crowds expected were too dangerous.

“It would be a very large amount of people in the park,” said Sherman. “I couldn’t approve it because of the high risk.”

The sending of soldiers to American cities has been one of Trump’s dreams since his first term as president, experts said. Certain fears of expanding the use of soldiers for civilian police could be a first step towards martial law.

“The reason for which Trump could find it delicious is because that’s what Lincoln did,” said Eric J. Segall, professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “Trump wants to be Lincoln.”

The president has already reported his intention to extend the use of soldiers

“We’re going to watch New York. And if we need it, we’re going to do the same in Chicago,” Trump said at a press conference in August. “I hope it looks at it.”

For Breyer, the threat is existential.

“What is to prevent a national police force?” The judge said. “Is there a limit?”

The decision could have implications beyond Los Angeles.

Trump, who sent around 5,000 navies and troops of the National Guard to Los Angeles in June in a decision which was opposed by the Governor of California Gavin Newsom and the mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass, published a decree declaring a public security emergency to DC, the order invoked article 740 of the district of Columbia Home Rule act.

In June, Breyer decided that Trump had violated the law when he mobilized thousands of members of the California National Guard against the wishes of the State.

In a 36 -page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal – going beyond the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States has paused in this court order, allowing troops to stay in Los Angeles while the case takes place before the Federal Court. The Court of Appeal found that the president had a broad, but not “invisible” power to deploy the army in American cities.

In his Tuesday decision, Breyer added: “The evidence at the trial established that the defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockages, engage in the control of crowds and demonstrate a military presence in Los Angeles.