Federal judge questions Trump's control over California National Guard troops

SAN FRANCISCO A federal judge on Friday raised serious doubts about the Trump administration's authority to continue commanding California National Guard troops that were first sent to Los Angeles in June following violent protests. At a hearing in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer suggested that conditions in Los Angeles have shifted since the initial deployment and questioned whether federal law allows the administration to maintain indefinite control over state Guard forces.

No crisis lasts forever, Breyer remarked. Experience shows that crises come and go.

The judge pressed a government attorney for evidence that state officials were unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property, noting that the president had access to tens of thousands of active duty troops in California.

California authorities are seeking a preliminary injunction to return the remaining National Guard troops in Los Angeles to state control. Breyer did not issue a ruling immediately. Previously, he had ruled that the administrations deployment of the California National Guard was unlawful.

The National Guard is not the presidents personal army to deploy wherever he wants, for as long as he wants, and for any reason he wants, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated after the hearing.

Trump initially mobilized more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his increased immigration enforcement, but by late October, that number had fallen to a few hundred, with around 100 remaining in the Los Angeles area.

The president has also sought to use California Guard members in Portland, Oregon, and Chicago as part of an effort to deploy military forces in Democratic-led cities, despite opposition from local officials. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that federal law grants the president the power to extend control over state Guard troops as he sees fit. The remaining troops in Los Angeles were supporting immigration enforcement and safeguarding federal property, Hamilton said, citing an incident where incendiary devices were thrown at a federal building.

Although the court cannot generally review how the president manages an ongoing Guard mission, Hamilton emphasized that the violence in Los Angeles this summer must be considered. We cannot ignore what happened in June, he said.

The deployment marked the first time in decades that a states National Guard was activated without a governors request and represented a significant escalation in the administrations deportation enforcement. Troops were stationed outside a federal detention center and later deployed to streets to protect immigration officers during arrests. California challenged the deployment, and Breyer issued a temporary order requiring the administration to return control of the troops, though an appeals court later paused that ruling.

California argued that the president violated laws limiting military use in domestic matters. The administration contended that courts could not question the presidents judgment that the protests constituted a threat to law enforcement and public order. In September, Breyer ruled after a trial that the deployment was illegal. Other judges have blocked National Guard deployments to Portland and Chicago.

Author: Harper Simmons