The national guard troops will remain under the control of Trump, for the moment, under the order of the 9th circuit

In a decision at the end of the evening Thursday, the court of appeal of the 9th American circuit interrupted an order of the court which would have forced President Trump to make control of the thousands of troops of the National Guard of California on the ground in Los Angeles to Governor Gavin Newsom.

The emergency stay of the 9th circuit occurred a few hours after the American district judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled that Trump had broken the law when he mobilized thousands of members of the guard in the midst of the demonstrations against the immigration raids and must bring the troops to the state control at noon on Friday.

A panel of three judges on the 9th circuit, including two judges appointed by Trump and one by President Biden, planned a Tuesday hearing in the case, which means that the National Guard will remain federalized throughout the weekend.

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.” Breyer added that he was “disturbed by the involvement” inherent in the argument of the Trump administration according to which “the protest against the federal government, a basic civil freedom protected by the first amendment, can justify a conclusion of rebellion”.

Newsom, who filed the trial with the state of California, called the decision “a victory for all the Americans”.

“Today, it was really the test of democracy, and today we have successfully tested,” Newsom told journalists in a building that houses the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco.

The decision, California Atty. General Rob Bonta told journalists: “an early critical indication that during the rapid examination of the facts of our business, the court sees the advantages of our argument”.

“We are not prey to a rebellion,” said Bonta. “We are not threatened with an invasion. Nothing prevents the federal government from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend did not justify the deployment of military troops, and their arrival only brought the situation. ”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the case Thursday evening and seeks to delay the Breyer order until the 9th circuit decides the case. If the 9th circuit granted the suspension request, control of the National Guard would not return to Newsom on Friday, Bonta said.

If the 9th circuit does not give the stay, the Breyer’s order will take effect on Friday afternoon, sending the national guard back to the control of Newsom. Newsom said the troops would start working on the application of drugs, border security and forest management.

During a hearing Thursday, Breyer seemed skeptical about the argument of the Ministry of Justice according to which the courts could not question the president’s judgment on key legal issues, in particular if the demonstrations and disorders in Los Angeles constituted “a rebellion or a danger of rebellion”.

“We are talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” said Breyer. “This is the difference between the president and King George.”

Trump and the White House argued that military mobilization is legal under article 12406 of title 10 of the American code on the armed forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or a danger of rebellion against the authority of the United States government”.

“The Los Angeles demonstrations are not far from” rebellion “,” wrote Breyer. There have been cases of violence, he said, but the Trump administration did not identify “a violent, armed, organized uprising, opened and was admitted against the government as a whole”.

“The evidence is overwhelming that the demonstrators gathered to protest a single problem: immigration raids,” wrote Breyer.

Title 10 of the American code also requires that the President’s orders “be issued through the governors of the States”.

As governor, Newsom is the commander -in -chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, sent a note at the head of the California goalkeeper to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to the Newsom office, said the state complaint. Neither Newsom nor his office made the mobilization, said the trial.

Newsom wrote in Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to cancel the deployment of troops. The letter indicated that mobilization was “a serious violation of state sovereignty which seems intentionally designed to ignite the situation, while simultaneously deploying the state to deploy this personnel and these resources where it is really required”.

“I try to understand how something” through “someone, if you did not send him,” asked Breyer. “As long as he gets a copy at some point, is it going?”

Breyer was however less willing to engage in the legality of the deployment by Trump of the American Marines in Los Angeles. California lawyers noted that 140 navies were to relieve and replace the guards in the coming 24 hours.

Friday, demonstrations emerged in Los Angeles in response to a series of flash raids by immigration and customs agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the demonstrators committed violence and vandalism, which prompted Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added the Marines in active service to the operation on Monday. The demonstrations and certain sporadic violent riots have continued since deployments.

Trump said that mobilization was necessary to “face the violent and encouraged riots” and that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely erased”.

Breyer said that the Trump administration had identified “wandering violent incidents relating to demonstrations”, and from there, he said: “Boldly say that state authorities and local officials were” unable to master the rioters “.” »»

“It is not the place of the federal government in our constitutional system to resume the power of the police of a state whenever it is not satisfied with the vigorously or quickly of the state applying its own laws,” wrote Breyer.

The general prosecutors of 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein-Soto, supported California’s position in the case.

Wilner reported Washington, DC, Wong de San Francisco and Nelson de Los Angeles.