On Monday, Justice Department lawyers appeared in federal court to justify the deployment of Marines and the California State Guard during a violent anti-ICE protest in Los Angeles that took place in June.
This trial, which commenced in San Francisco, involves allegations that federal lawyers acted against a law prohibiting military force for domestic law enforcement. It’s a case Governor Gavin Newsom has strongly opposed.
The protest began on June 6, fueled by events linked to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and saw the city grapple with over 100 illegal immigrants being apprehended.
As the demonstration unfolded, hundreds took to the streets, chanting slogans, waving Mexican flags, and holding anti-ICE signs while confronting police and federal agents.
However, things escalated rapidly, transforming into a riot marked by burning cars, destruction of public buildings, and looting of local businesses.
In response to the turmoil, President Trump announced the deployment of about 4,000 Coast Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to restore order.
Newsom criticized this action, suggesting it would turn soldiers into “props for the federal government’s propaganda machine.”
The Trump administration defended the deployment as a means to circumvent California’s sanctuary city laws, which limit local enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration actions.
In retaliation, Newsom filed a lawsuit against the administration, seeking an evaluation from federal judge Charles R. Breyer, who was appointed by Bill Clinton and oversees the California trial, to declare the mobilization illegal.
However, shortly thereafter, the Court of Appeal overturned Breyer’s decision, allowing the troop deployment to proceed.
By July 1, most of the National Guard and Marines had been released from Los Angeles, leaving around 300 still stationed in the city.
The New York Times reported that those remaining were there to support requests for assistance from federal law enforcement, as articulated by William Harrington, a former deputy chief of staff of the Army Task Force.
The trial could establish a legal precedent regarding the authority the commander-in-chief holds over military forces on U.S. soil.
Newsom’s legal team contended that the troop deployment in Los Angeles breached the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, which prohibits military involvement in civil law enforcement.
State lawyers also argued that Trump violated the Tenth Amendment by deploying troops without the consent of Governor Newsom and other California officials.
Additionally, there are claims that the President and the Secretary of Defense breached the Administrative Procedure Act by federalizing California State Guard members without a direct order from Newsom.
Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, referenced a less-known provision (section 12406(3) of the U.S. Code) that permits the president to federalize the National Guard under specific scenarios.
These scenarios include situations where the U.S. faces invasion or is at risk of civil disorder, or when the President cannot adequately enforce U.S. laws with available resources.
Newsom and the state are pursuing formal court declarations deeming Trump’s orders illegal and seeking relief that would prevent future troop deployments of the California State Guard without explicit gubernatorial approval.
Interestingly, this development coincided with Trump’s announcement regarding the deployment of National Guard members to address increased violent crime in Washington, D.C.
