A federal judge in San Francisco banned soldiers from assisting immigrant arrests and other civil law enforcement agencies on Tuesday, warning of a zealous order that came into effect on Sept. 12, warning “a national police force that serves as president.”
In a 52-page decision Tuesday morning, Senior District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer banned the administration from “deploying, ordering, mentoring, training or using California forces to engage in civilian law enforcement, a ruling that could be used by Trump nationwide.
“Why is the National Guard still around?” Breyer asked for obvious stimulus at last month’s trial.
“What is the threat today? What was the threat yesterday or two weeks ago?” the judge said. “I tried to see if there were any restrictions, any restrictions on the use of federal forces.”
The government called California’s lawsuit “Hail-Mary Pass” and vowed to deal with the decision.
The ruling comes after the president deployed the National Guard order in mid-August, where hundreds of troops now patrol the U.S. capital
Thousands may soon be deployed to other U.S. cities, the government warns.
There are about 300 soldiers on the streets of Los Angeles, and thousands of National Guards and hundreds of Marines were deployed in early June to quell the fierce protests against immigrant attacks.
Breyer’s orders will strictly limit what the rest of the troops can do. The Justice Department said this will appeal the decision immediately, all of which ensures stay until the 9th Circuit can rule it later this month.
Experts say the subsequent judicial dust will clarify precedent from a vague perspective of the law. But some warn that it may also uncover a roadmap for future deployment in cities across the United States
“If Breyer was with Trump along with Newsom and the 9th Tour, we would now have a script that could leverage the National Guard and military forces across the country.” Mark P, a law professor at Emory University.
“He will rule from the most liberal tour in the United States and deploy it with the law,” Nevitt said. “That will create bad laws for the country.”
This is the second time this summer Gavin Newsom is likely to try to cut presidential powers when he filed a lawsuit against Trump in June.
On June 9, Breyer ruled to strip the president of federal forces of the president, saying he had covered up his power in part of the American Code. The 9th Circuit quickly reversed the decision and found that the president had extensive discretion over domestic deployment.
“He is using these shadow statutory mechanisms to come where he wants to go without making a difficult political decision to invoke the Uprising Act,” Newitt said. “His lawyers are scrubbing U.S. regulations seeking executive power.”
Now, the Court of Appeals must weigh whether the same broad presidential discretion extends to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century statute that prohibits soldiers from being unable to enforce civilian laws except in the most extreme cases.
The Justice Department argues that once the president invokes his near-behavior deployment power, the bill allows soldiers to “protect” nearly all actions for federal law enforcement.
“You’re because the president said it, so?” Breyer said. “In other words, if the president determines that there is a certain threat to the security of federal agents, we will see federal officials everywhere.”
The argument sometimes turns to what Breyer calls “Alice Wonderland” logic: Justice Department lawyers say Los Angeles troops are strictly abiding by the law and The law does not apply to them.
“Why do I have to spend a day looking at the slides after the slides and the slides after the supervision and report after the report… If the POSSE COMITATUS ACT doesn’t matter, comply with the Posse Comitatus Act?” Breyer snapped up. “Maybe you should tell the client that they don’t have to follow [it] If that’s your point of view. ”
Similarly, government lawyers told the court that Trump cannot be prosecuted for violating criminal regulations. But, due to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling last year, he said he could not be violated either.
“So there is no remedy,” Breyer said.
Experts say the law is not yet clear.
“The legitimacy of all this is really confusing,” Nevet said. “It can be said that California may not even have a position to address the merits of the case.”
Others are more optimistic about California’s opportunities.
“It’s an opportunity to give well-known regulations,” said Dan Maurer, a law professor at Northern Ohio University. “It’s important to see what the president can get rid of.”
The trial also revealed stunning new details of some of Southern California’s most controversial military operations this summer, including their participation in a July raid at MacArthur Park, which angered residents and city officials.
On August 12, Major General Scott Marshall Sherman testified that Border Patrol agents initially planned to target the park on Father’s Day – a decision that rejected the decision, saying the expected crowds made it too dangerous.
“It’s going to be a lot of people in the park,” Sherman said. “I can’t approve it because of the high risk.”
Experts say sending soldiers to American cities has been one of Trump’s dreams since he served as the president. Some fear that expanding the use of civilian police by soldiers may be the first step towards martial law.
“Trump might find the pleasure to be because that’s what Lincoln did,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University School of Law. “Trump wants to be Lincoln.”
The president has shown that he intends to expand the use of the army
“We’re going to look at New York. We’re going to do the same thing in Chicago if we need it,” Trump said in an August press conference. “Hope Los Angeles is going to look at it.”
For Breyer, the threat exists.
“What is to prevent the National Police Force?” the judge said. “Is there any restrictions?”
