Despite the inspiring responsibilities from a federal judge on Thursday, the troops deployed in Los Angeles remain under the president’s control until the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns.
On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters continue to meet a squad of armed soldiers. State and local officials are in open conflict with the president. In court, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of old-fashioned laws that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown, including the constitutional manipulation invented to enforce the Fleet Slave Act of 1850.
Many legal scholars say the current battle with Los Angeles is a test case of authority the White House has long hoped to act — extending the president’s authority to legal restrictions, not just protests and large blue state leaders.
“We’ll be on a lot of rides about what’s going to happen this weekend,” says Christopher Mirasora, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
By maintaining an order to control most of the military over California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit left the Trump administration under the command of thousands of National Guard and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide “king” protests planned on Saturday.
The Trump administration argued in court that it has the power to deploy troops to LA for protesters preventing ice agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants, and because the downtown demonstration belongs to a “rebellion against the authority of the US government.”
However, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump was steaming state leaders when he deployed California troops to the federal government against protesters.
“His actions were illegal. Both are beyond the scope of his statutory authority and violate the 10th amendment to the US Constitution,” Breyer wrote.
Although ICE “did not to hold as many people as the accused could have,” Breyer ruled that it could maintain US immigration laws without the help of the military. Some belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not instigate a rebellion, he added.
“The idea that protesters can cross the line between protected actions and “rebellion against the authority of the US government” is unacceptable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.
The 9th Circuit maintained control of Breyer after the California leader issued a temporary restraining order allowing National Guard soldiers to be withdrawn from LA.
The suspension will take effect at least Tuesday until a three-person, two-person, judge panel appointed by President Trump, is made up of former President Biden.
The court battle is based on precedents that go back to the nation’s foundations and offers a vision that contrasts the purpose of federal authorities and state rights.
The last time the president made the federal government a federal government over the governor’s objections was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr., and Selma defended Montgomery’s march against the GOV of the time. George Wallace.
But sending troops to support ICE has less in common with Johnson’s move than President Millard Fillmore’s actions a century ago, Mirasora said. From 1850, a professor of law in Houston stated that Fillmore would send troops to accompany the Federal Formers who were about to arrest the fleeing slaves who had fled north.
Mirasora said Trump’s arguments to support federal immigration enforcement efforts in favour of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principles. He pointed out that anger over the repeated clashes of the military with civilians helped blow the flames that led to civil war.
“Many of the population were actively opposed to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.
Some analysts believe that Trump strategically chose immigration as an issue that advances the so-called version of “unified enforcement theory.” Congress has no power and says that the judiciary has no right to interfere with the way the president blocks control of the administrative division.
“It’s no coincidence that immigrants are the flashpoint,” said Min Hus Chen, a professor at UCSF Law School. “People who want to exert strong federal power over immigrants will see LA as a very iconic place and as a zero on the ground to show their authority.”
Chen, who leads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship and Equality Program under the UCSF Act, said it is clear that Trump and his advisors have a “vision of how ice can give them courage.”
“He puts it on steroids,” Chen said. “He folds down many different kinds of excess enforcement, as if they were the same thing.”
Some experts have pointed out that Judge Breyer’s orders are limited to California only. So, it’s a process that drags you over a few weeks or months until it’s fully sued, meaning the president can try similar moves elsewhere.
“The president was able to try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Freedom and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
“President Trump’s memorandum for deploying troops in Los Angeles made it very clear that he thinks it’s appropriate… no matter where the protests are happening,” Goitein said. “He certainly seems to think that even a peaceful protest can be empowered.”
Experts said Breyer’s ruling would set a high standard for what could be considered a “rebellion” under the law, and make it difficult for the administration to assert that it is certainly arguing in LA if it is allowed to stand on appeal.
“It’s hard to imagine what appears to be a weekend to be an attempt at organised armed forces to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has not continued because of the allegations that extreme measures are needed to restore and protect order when federal agents work.
“The mob will not stop the arrest of illegal criminal foreigners or stop the ice,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week. “Murderers, pedophiles, drug traffickers. These are the types of crime violation aliens that mob fight to protect.”
Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the matter could go to the Supreme Court. Some jurists fear that if Trump continues to lose, he may defy the courts. Others say that while the fateful incidents that will make him pass through the judicial system ring out, he may be pleased with the chaos.
“As a law professor, it’s odd to say that the law is probably not important,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] I especially care about him doing something illegal. ”
Times staff writer Sundrac Donald contributed to this report.
Source link
