By Dietrich Knauth
(Reuters) -A federal appeals court will hear arguments on Tuesday on President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles amid protests and civil unrest, days after a lower court ruled that the president unlawfully called the National Guard into service.
The lower court’s ruling last Thursday was put on hold hours later by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider the Trump administration’s request for a longer pause during its appeal.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco had ruled that the Republican president unlawfully took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard, but Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marines’ mobilization.
Breyer said Trump had not complied with the law that allows him to take control of the National Guard to address rebellions or invasions, and ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom, who sued over the deployment.
Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles sparked a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in a city in the midst of protest and turmoil over Trump’s immigration raids.
Political unrest spread to other parts of the country over the weekend, when a gunman assassinated a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota and large protests took place in many other cities to coincide with a military parade that celebrated the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary on the same day as Trump’s 79th birthday.
California’s lawsuit, filed on June 9, argues that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violate the state’s sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they were instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
The Trump administration argues that the law gives the president sole discretion to determine whether a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” requires a military response and that neither the courts nor a state governor can second-guess that determination.
In Thursday’s order, Breyer said the protest fell far short of qualifying as a rebellion.
“The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion,” Breyer wrote.
The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit that will hear the case consists of two judges appointed by Trump in his first term and one judge who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Sandra Maler)
