The 9th Court of Appeals of the United States Circuit decided on Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration, while California's objections are litigated in a federal court, finding that the president had a broad authority, although not “not reviewable”, to display the military in US cities.
“We do not agree with the main argument of the defendants that the president's decision to federalize the members of the California National Guard … is completely isolated from the judicial review,” wrote Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, designated by Trump, for the appeal panel. “However, we are persuaded that, under long -standing precedents, interpreting the legal predecessor … Our review of that decision must be highly deferent.”
California leaders promised to fight in the Federal Court.
“This case is far from finishing,” Atty. General Rob Bonta said in response to the ruling. “While the Court did not provide an immediate relief for Angels today, we are still sure of our arguments and we will continue the fight.”
“We will advance with our challenge to the authoritarian use of President Trump of US military soldiers against citizens,” Governor Gavin Newsom said.
Legal scholars said the decision was expected, particularly because the 9th circuit moved from the country's most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the beginning of Trump's first mandate.
“It is vital that people understand how much power with Congress has given the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at the Central University of Florida and a military judge of appeals.
“The judges for hundreds of years have now given an extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] Use of the military, “Merriam added.” There is no other law area where the president or executive obtains that level of deference. “
The appeal panel sharply questioned both parties during the hearing on Tuesday, which seemed to reject the federal government's statement that the courts had no right to review the president's actions, while undermining California's claim that Trump had exceeded his authority by sending troops to him to suffocate a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.”
“The three judges seemed skeptical about the arguments that each party was doing in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, principal director of the National Security and Freedom program of the Brennan Center of the University of New York.
“I was impressed by the questions,” he continued. “I think they were just questions, I think they were difficult questions. I think the judges were fighting with the right problems.”
Thursday's ruling largely returns the issue to the American district judge Charles R. Breyer.
Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restriction order on June 12 would have returned the control of the National Guard to California, the Court of Appeals greatly avoided the question of whether the facts in the field in Los Angeles were equivalent to a “rebellion.”
Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.
Bennett's opinion directly refuted the argument, made by the Atty assistant. General Brett Shumate at the Audience on Tuesday: that the decision to federalize the National Guard troops was “not reviewable.”
“The defendants argue that this language prevents the review,” the judge wrote. “[But Supreme Court precedent] It does not force us to accept the federal government's position that the president could federalize the National Guard based on any evidence, and that the courts could not review a decision that was obviously absurd or taken in bad faith. “
He also cited extensively the decision of the 1932 Supreme Court in Sterling vs. Constantin, writing ”
You may also like...
