California state and federal government lawyers on Tuesday faced the court in the court for the deployment of thousands of national guard soldiers in Los Angeles of President Trump.
The lawyer for the state, Meghan Strong argued that what is called “permanent army” in Los Angeles, is “unprecedented” and goes against “deep root policy” against military partnership in civil life. He said that Mr. Trump and Defense Secretary Pit Hegseth “think he can disregard that policy.”
California “The widespread presence of this permanent army is forced to bear anxiety and fear,” Strong said.
Mr. Trump sent about 700 Marines and 4,000 California National Guard soldiers to protect federal property and law enforcement agents during a series of protests against immigration and customs enforcement operations in early June. Deployment Conducted a lawsuit From the village Gavin Newsom, who did not approve the use of guard forces of his state and called the move an illegal “power grab”.
The three -day bench trial against the Trump administration is on the issue of whether the soldiers have violated the Pose Committess Act, which usually prevents military personnel from completing domestic law enforcement.
Strong alleged that the federal government worked in a violation of the law of 1878, stating that the soldiers were used to provide armed security for federal agents, determined obstacles and circumferences, which prohibited the civil movement, and detained citizens.
California asked the US District Judge Charles Brare for an prohibition, which would allow the military to protect the federal property – such as courthouse and ice facility – but block it by continuing support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state’s lawyer called “illegal military crusade”.
Meanwhile, justice department lawyer Eric Hamilton argued that military deployment is legal for the purpose of protecting federal property and personnel. He said that there is no violation of the Pose Committees Act.
The only witness of the federal government – Major General Scott Sharman, who was at a point at a point of the Guard Task Force in Los Angeles – said he was instructed that “we were not operating law enforcement and we were there to serve the United States.”
“We took our duty very seriously, and care and professionalism were always displayed,” he said.
Mr. Trump justifies deployment Using a law called Title 10Which allows the President to call the guard forces during the “rebellion”, or if he is “unable with regular forces to execute the United States laws. In early June, Mr. Trump said the protests in Los Angeles “are a form of rebellion” and threatened federal agents.
Breyer had earlier ruled that Mr. Trump had used the title 10 illegally, but he was told by a appellate court that Mr. Trump had a discretion to decide whether the law had been implemented.
Since then, most of the soldiers have left Los Angeles, with about 300 guards remaining. But this issue has attracted more attention in recent times, as the Trump administration has placed the National Guard Forces in Washington, DC
The administration says that deployment is necessary to support law enforcement and Close to violent crimeBut local leaders have condemned the intervention of the federal government.
Prabal warned that “Los Angeles is only the beginning,”, citing Mr. Trump’s recent comments, said that he indicated that he could deploy the National Guard in other cities including Okalland and New York.
A “constitutional exception?”
Parts of Tuesday’s testimony allegedly respected for the Pos Committess Act on “constitutional exception”.
At one point, Sharman mentioned the “constitutional exception”. He testified that he was advised that federal soldiers were allowed to do “four things”, usually a ban under the law – security patrols, traffic controls, rush controls and riot controls – “because the President was directing what was directing” and “what was the direction of the Defense Secretary.”
But Judge Breyer was unaware of such exception and pressed Sharman on the issue.
“I am not a lawyer,” said Sharman.
“This can be for your credit,” Breyer replied.
Breyer later asked if Sharman ever received legal advice that if the guard task force is engaged in some activities, it would violate the Pose Committees Act. Sharman testified that he was told, as Mr. Trump’s memorandum stated that Los Angeles protest was a form of rebellion that prevented federal agents from working, which triggered constitutional exceptions. “This is from the top of the DOD to the task force 51,” he said.
California’s lawyer, strong, disputed this “mysterious constitutional exception”, arguing that neither the President nor the Defense Secretary could create an exception to the “Pose Committee Act.”
He said, “This means that all the instructions we have seen for the last two days are wrong and what he asked to do was illegal.” “Those instructions are based on a constitutional exception that does not exist.”
An exception to Posse comitatatus act Rebellion actWhich allows the President to use the army to implement the law during a rebellion. Mr. Trump has not called for that law.
“If he says some rebellion, is it a rebellion?”
Mr. Trump’s details of protest against Los Angeles were opposed as “rebellion”, raised in court on Tuesday after Sherman Testify on meth He did not hear the word used to describe the demonstrations.
Sharman clarified on Tuesday that he knew that Mr. Trump’s memorandum had called the protest a rebellion.
The judge later pushed back against the idea that Mr. Trump had the discretion to decide whether “rebellion” is happening. “If he says some rebellion, is it a rebellion?” Breyer asked, repeatedly.
The federal government counsel, Hamilton, said that the President is the commander in Chief, and he is entitled to honor in that decision. But when asked several times by the judge, he admitted that it does not rebel it.
Breyer further questioned Mr. Trump’s ability as to what the law allows, when Hamilton argued that there was no violation of the Pos Committetus Act as the Army was serving a protective work in Los Angeles.
“Are you saying that because the President says, it is?” Breyer said.
“If the President says you can X,” he continued, “because the President said, is this enough to take it out of the Pose Committees Act?”
The test will end on Wednesday.
