Case of deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers of President Trump reached Los Angeles before this heat Third and last day WednesdayAs lawyers from the Department of Justice and the State of California, argued on the validity of the lawsuit of the village Gavin Newsom and whether the Pose Committees Act – which usually prevents the army from engaging in domestic law enforcement – applies to troupe deployment.
Mr. Trump posted in June For 4,000 California National Guard Troops and 700 Marine Los Angeles, he said he needed to protect federal property and law enforcement agents amidst June opposition against immigration and customs enforcement works. Newsom did not approve the use of its state’s guard forces and replied together trial To request prohibitory orders that limit the role of the army in the city.
In addition to claiming not to be implemented 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer of the Department of Justice, argued that there is no example for the trial, for the loss of prohibitory relief or money under the Act, and the necessary damage to inform the state of Newsom and California.
“This is in fact, the federal government that is engaged in unprecedented conduct,” said Deputy Attorney General Meghan said, representing the state of California, stating that the government has never used the army in this way.
US District Judge Charles Breyer was surprised by several claims of the government, especially he clearly called “absence of any border for the National Police Force”. He questioned the claim of the Department of Justice that the 19th -century law at the center of this test is not relevant, and claims that his court lacks jurisdiction to issue prohibition against the President.
“Then what is the solution?” Breyer asked Hamilton, raising the issue of immunity to the President from criminal prosecution. “You’re saying that is a criminal remedy? Can the President be prosecuted?
“So this is. It is very bad. It is very sad. It is over,” he added loudly. “And this is the end of the case.”
California has asked Breyer for an prohibition that will allow the army to protect the federal property – such as the convenience of the courtyard and snow – but blocks it from continuing support for immigration enforcement campaigns, which the state’s lawyer called “illegal military criminals”.
“Constitution and facts and facts are in favor of Governor Newsom,” said Josh Custenberg, Professor of New Mexico Law School. “But this does not mean that he is going to win. Ever since the Second World War, the courts have adopted this military honor theory, which is actually for the presidency in matters of military command and control.”
Question on scope
“We are going to see federal officials everywhere if the President determined that there was some threat to the safety of a federal agent,” Breyer asked Hamilton. “And this is his determination. Not mine, it is his. That’s what you are saying. This is the law.”
Hamilton said that “what I am saying was not enough.” He said that soldiers are not implementing federal laws, but providing security, and that it is valid to provide protection for federal buildings for Guardman and Marine – a point that he agreed with a California counsel. However, he argued, there is no difference between protecting federal property and protecting the federal law enforcement working in the region.
Breyer reported that the federal employees “are everywhere.”
The judge further questioned why any national guard members in Los Angeles remained, and expressed concern about the justification for continuous operation. Hamilton testified that 300 guardman forces remain 90% decrease. Strong said that this is still a significant number of soldiers, and is definitely enough to violate the law.
“Thanks to the National Guard, but why is the federal national guard still?” Asked Breer. “What is the danger today? What was the danger yesterday?”
“I go back to the fact that I am really upset: what are the factors for the use of this force?” He said, “Once you have a force, and perhaps do so legally, and the threat to give birth to that place decreases … How is this National Police Force seen which goes out where the danger goes out and starts executing other laws?”
Does Posse Comitatus Act apply?
The Breer appeared to be raising the issue with the argument of the Department of Justice that the Pose Committees Act does not apply, given that a major witness, Major General Scott Sharman – who was at a point of the Commanding General of Guard Task Force in Los Angeles – had testified that the soldiers were trained to act within the limits of that law.
“Then why did this excellent chief general assurance that the Pose Committees Act was followed?” Breyer said. “Why did I spend one day after seeing the slide after the slide, and regulation after regulation, and the report on the operation of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Pose Committees Act if the Poz Committetus Act is irrelevant?”
Strong argued that all the leaders of the Defense Department agreed that the Pos Committees Act applies to the Task Force 51 soldiers in Los Angeles. He said that he replaced the word “security” for “security” while describing the activities of soldiers because he knew that the “Security” would violate the Act.
He said that a memorandum was issued by the Defense Secretary, calling a constitutional exception to the Pos Committess Act, and positively instructed to direct the soldiers to violate it – but the memo was released after those activities.
On Tuesday, Sharman testified that he was advised to have a “constitutional exception”, which enabled soldiers to conduct some activities that would usually violate the Pose Committess Act.
Strong, after the fact that it was an attempt by the Defense Department to justify its actions, “reveals awareness about a knowledge and their violations.”
The federal government “is disregarding the law, and so we need to show nothing more than this,” Strong said.
He further argued that the Constitution tries to ensure that the President cannot control a permanent army in the way the king did in 1776. He said that it would not be a legal support for the state to “challenge the conduct of these soldiers” to the basic principles of federalism. ”
“If you look at the plain language of the Pos Committess Act, and fear the standing forces present during the Constitution,” said Kastainberg. “… One of the biggest issues in the state conferences and to start in the framing of the Constitution had to significantly reduce the President’s right to the permanent army, and to keep the permanent army very small.”
Breyer did not give a time outline for his decision, said at the end of the day, “I can decide the matter as soon as I can decide the matter.”
Joe Walsh contributed to this report.
