Despite a stimulating condemnation Thursday, the military deployed in Los Angeles will maintain presidential control throughout the weekend and conduct a series of high-risk showdowns.
On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue with the platoon of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain openly clashed with the president. In the court, Trump administration lawyers are delving into case law in search of what can be said to be a legitimate ancient statute of ongoing federal repression, including invented constitutional actions to enforce the 1850 Fighting Slave Act.
Many legal scholars say the current battle with Los Angeles is a test case of the power the White House has long wanted to play — not only to squeeze protests or big feet of blue state leaders, but also to extend the president's authority to its legal cap.
“A lot of things happened this weekend,” said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
By continuing to control most of the troops back to California leaders, until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals brought the Trump administration to the thousands of National Guards and hundreds of Marines planned to be held on Saturday’s national “No Kings” protests.
The Trump administration claimed in court that protesters had the right to deploy troops to Los Angeles because protesters prevented Ice Agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants, because demonstrations in the downtown area constituted a “rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government.”
But Trump has thrived state leaders when federal forces in California and deployed them against protesters, San Francisco's U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer wrote Thursday.
“His conduct is illegal, both beyond his legal authority and in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.
Breyer ruled that although ICE “cannot detain as many people as the defendants believe,” it is still able to uphold U.S. immigration laws without the help of the military. He added that several of the thousands of peaceful protesters had no rebellion.
“The idea that protesters can cross so quickly between protected acts and the rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.
Breyer
At least Tuesday, a three-judge panel of two appointed by President Trump will continue to be suspended until Tuesday, when former President Biden appoints two groups – a debate about whether the unit can remain under federal guidance.
The court battle drew on precedents that extended to the country’s foundations, providing a clear contrast to the rights of federal authorities and states.
The president last time the federal government held a federal government against a governor’s objection, which was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and Martin Luther King Jr. and Selma and Montgomery went to Montgomery to ignore Gov at the time. George Wallace.
Millard Fillmore's move compared to what was a century ago, Millard Fillmore said, but sending troops to assist the ice compared to what was happening a century ago. Houston law professor said that starting from 1850, Fillmore sent troops to accompany the federal bailiffs in an attempt to arrest slaves who had escaped from the north.
Mirasola said Trump's arguments to support federal immigration enforcement by the National Guard and Marines depend on the same principle of Article 2 of the Constitution's “care” clause. He pointed out that anger at the repeated conflict between the military and civilians helped to inspire the flames that led to the civil war.
“Many people are actively opposed to the implementation of the Fugitive Offenders Act,” the professor said.
Some analysts believe that Trump’s strategic choice of immigration is a problem in advancing what he calls a version of “unified executive theory,” a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no power to interfere with the president’s control over the executive branch.
“It's no coincidence that we see immigration as a flash point,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UCSF Law School. “People who want to exert strong federal power over immigration see Los Angeles as a highly symbolic place, and ground zero to show their authority.”
Chen, who heads the UCSF law’s Race, Immigration, Citizenship and Equality Program, said Trump and his advisers clearly have a “vision of how to incite the ice.”
“He put it on the steroids. “He folded many different types of executive powers together as if they were the same thing,” Chen said. ”
Some experts point out that Judge Breyer's orders are limited to California, meaning that the president may try similar moves elsewhere until the lawsuit is complete, which may delay for weeks or months.
“The president can try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
“President Trump's memorandum of deploying troops in Los Angeles makes it very clear that he thinks it's appropriate … anywhere the protests take place,” Goitein said. “He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be carried out by force.”
Experts say Breyer's ruling sets a high standard for what the law considers “insurrection” which makes it more difficult for the government (if it is allowed to stand up) to make it credibly claiming that it is underway in Los Angeles.
“It's hard to imagine everything we see over the weekend will be an organized armed attempt to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has not insisted that extreme measures must be taken to restore order and protect the work of federal agents.
“The thugs won't stop or slow down the ice,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a press release this week, including several arrested criminals. “Murderers, pedophiles and drug traffickers. These are the types of illegal foreigners who are thugs for protecting crimes.”
Even after the 9th Circuit ruling, the issue can still be sent to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear that Trump's continuous loss may defy the court. Others say he may be satisfied with the damage of harm and is doomed to be in trouble in the justice system.
“As a law professor, I say that law doesn't matter, and that's a strange thing for me,” Chen said. “I don't know.” [Trump] Especially caring about what he is doing illegal things. ”
Times worker Sandra McDonald contributed to the report.
