9th Circuit weighs Trump’s case for deploying troops to L.A.

9. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal questioned that both President Trump’s decision to place both the federal units in Los Angeles and the court’s right to examine him and questioned a new challenge for the presidential power at the US Supreme Court.

A panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Trump, forced the administration to its central claim that the president had almost unlimited discretionary authority to place the army on American streets.

However, they doubted the decision that a federal judge in San Francisco last week should immediately return to California officials. Judges intentionally stopped this decision, this week as soon as possible with a expected decision will remain in force.

Uc Berkeley Dean of the Faculty of Law Erwin Chezerinsky, “Important question … Judges Trump’s California national guards to nationalize the legal needs of the decision to meet the allegations of acceptance,” he said.

The questions in the heart of the case are testing the limits of the Presidential authority, which the US Supreme Court has expanded to a great extent in recent years.

One of Trump appointed, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu asked a president that he could seek national guards in 50 states and Columbia Region in response to the unrest in California, and that the decision was “completely reviewed by the courts. Gene. Brett Shumate answered for sure: “Yes.”

“This could not be clear,” Shumate said. “The president decides how many power is necessary to suppress the rebellion and to carry out federal laws.”

“It is not the abuse of the court’s authority, because there may be hypothetical lawsuits that the president can abuse the authority in the future,” he said.

Deputy California, General Samuel Harbourt, said that interpretation was dangerous and damaged by American democratic norms if supported.

Harbourt said, ız According to the President, we do not have a problem with some appropriate postponement, ”he said. “Ask … nothing to postpone here.”

The Trump administration claimed that immigrant executive agents used unity to enable immigrant executive agents to arrest and deportation, claiming that demonstrations against the city center against the city center means “rebellion against the authority of the US government”.

The state and local authorities said that the movement was unjust and naked – a evaluation shared by the senior regional judge Charles R. Breyer, who will give the control of most soldiers back to the leaders of California last week.

Breyer heard the challenge in the northern part of California, but saw that his decision was appealed and waited by the 9th circuit.

The remaining of the Court of Appeal abandoned the Trump administration as the command of thousands of national guards and hundreds of Maritime Publications in Los Angeles during the weekend, when demonstrators left the streets under the water as part of the “king” protests across the country.

The events were largely peaceful, only more than three dozens of demonstrators were arrested on Saturday, and none of them were detained on Sunday – for the restlessness of the previous week.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on Tuesday, Los Angeles, hundreds of sailors still deployed in La will provide logistics support. Under the executive order of last week, national guard troops will be deployed for 60 days.

Discussing before the appeal panel on Tuesday, Shumate said it was necessary to defend the military asset against the ongoing “mafia violence üzerinden on the streets of La.

“Federal personnel in Los Angeles in Los Angeles in Los Angeles continues to face violence,” he said. “Unfortunately, local authorities are to protect the federal staff and the property or reluctant.”

Harbourt has returned to these claims.

“[Violence] It is a deep source of concern for state leaders. ”

However, three judges seemed to be less interested in the facts on the ground in Los Angeles.

“In the normal course, the resistance level encountered by the federal law enforcement officers is not zero, right?” Judge Eric D. Miller asked Seattle. “So this … When can you call this?”

While the Court of Appeal scales these arguments, California officials tried to support the case at the Regional Court at the beginning of Monday and Tuesday.

“The actions of the President and the Defense Secretary mean the claim of an unprecedented and dangerous executive power,” California Atty, “California Atty. General Rob Bonda wrote in a movement for the preliminary precautionary measure decision.

“The president [the law] The state authorizes the national guard units to federalize and to place them on the streets of American cities and towns when they perceive ‘opposition’ or ‘disobedience to a legal command’. ”The movement continued. No court It can review this decision and assign itself to an almost uncontrolled force. ”

In his speech to the troops in Fort Bragg last week, the President said, “Los Angeles would liberate”.

In court, Bonda described the deployment as the öğren the military occupation of the second largest city in the country ”.

Los Angeles officials said that in an amicus summary opened by the city lawyer’s office on Monday, the military deployment “complicated” his efforts to make Angelenos safely.

“The domestic use of the army is abrasive,” he said. “Every day this deployment continues, it sows fear among the inhabitants of the city, erodes his confidence in the city and increases conflicts with local law enforcement officers.”

Although the Court of Appeal, Bennett and judge Jennett and judge Jennifer Sung in Portland, hired protection troops in LA, kept them away from other critical tasks, including fighting forest fires, has greatly reduced this question.

Professor Carl Tobias of Richmond University said, “The judges were sensitive to this, and that’s why they’ll do it earlier, not later, if they’re going to go on a ‘no’ for troops,” he said. “If they are convinced, I think they will act fast.”

With all the issues that will rapidly encounter more cases and the high court, the observers said that the decision of the 9th Circuit will affect the interpretation of the next judge set-a process that can drag for months.

“Both sides seem to hurry to make a decision, but they all [the Supreme Court] It can be late in this period, to hear an emergency objection. ”