Judge warns of ‘national police force,’ keeps L.A. troop injunction

A federal judge in San Francisco warned the soldiers from helping the immigrant arrests and other civilian law enforcement officers in a irregular order to enter into force on September 12th, and to help other civilian law enforcement officers in Southern California.

In a 52-page decision early on Tuesday morning, Senior Region Judge Charles R. Breyer banned California troops from a decision that could obtain extensive results for the use of the army’s national use of the army in order to participate in the civil law enforcement officers.

“Why are the national guards still around?” Breyer wanted significant irritation at the hearing last month.

“What is the threat today? What did the threat allowed yesterday or two weeks ago?” The judge said. “I am trying to see if there is any limit, whether the use of a federal power is the limits.”

The government described California’s case as a “full-large transition ve and promised to fight the decision.

Hundreds of soldiers come in mid -August as the President’s order to block the crime at DC in the US capital.

The management said thousands of people can soon be deployed to other American cities.

Thousands of national guards and hundreds of sailors were talked about to remove violent protests on migrant raids in early June.

Breyer’s order would definitely limit what the remaining forces could do. The Ministry of Justice said that the decision will be immediately appealed, except that the 9th Circuit can remain until you decide later on this month.

Experts say that the next judicial dust will clarify a precedent in a dark corner of the law. However, some warn that it can open a road map for future distributions in cities throughout the USA.

Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at the University of Emory, said, “We have a game book to use the 9th circuit, the national guards and perhaps the army all over the country, Mark said Mark P. Nevitt.

Nevitt would make a decision that made legal progress for this deployment of the most liberal transfer in the United States, Nev said Nevitt. “Makes a bad law for this country.”

For the second time this summer, Govin Gavin Newsom faces the risk of expanding the presidential power, which he tries to restrict when he filed a lawsuit against Trump in June.

On June 9, Breyer decided to rob the command of the federalized troops, saying that it has exceeded its authority under an uncertain sub -section of the US code. 9. The circuit rapidly reversed this decision and found that the President had a wide discretionary authority on domestic deployments.

Nevitt uses the legal mechanisms of this shadow to reach the place he wants to go without making the difficult political decision of calling the Autrobe Law, ”Nevitt said. “The lawyers are looking for the US code.”

Now, the Court of Appeal should weigh whether the same extensive existence of the existence of the presidential authority has spread to violations of the Posse Comitatus Law, a regulation in the 19th century, which prohibits the application of civil laws of the soldiers.

The Ministry of Justice claims that after the President invited his close authority to distribute them to distribute them, he claims that there is almost everything that soldiers can do to “protect” to federal law enforcement officers under the law.

“Do you say because the president says that, so is it?” Breyer said. “In other words, if the President determines that there is a threat to the security of a federal agent, we will see federal officers everywhere.”

From time to time, the argument turned to what Breyer called logic in the land in the Wonderland ”: The Ministry of Justice’s lawyers said that the Los Angeles troops follow the law strictly And The law does not apply to them.

“Why one day I spent the arrangement after the slide and arrangement after the slide and after the report after the report … Compliance with the Posse Comitatus law if the law of Posse Comitatus is insignificant?” Breyer broke. “Maybe you should tell your client that they don’t have to follow. [it] If that’s your opinion. ”

Likewise, management lawyers said the court could not be sued for violating Trump’s criminal law. However, last year, the Supreme Court’s Presidential immunity decision can not be tried to break it.

“So there’s no remedy, Breyer said.

Experts say the law is uncertain.

Nevitt, the legality is really scattered, Nev said Nevitt. “Probably California may not stand to reach even the basis of the case.”

Others rose more about California’s chances.

“This is an opportunity to give more meaning to a bad -famous charter, Dan said Dan Maurer, the law professor of law at the University of Northern, Ohio. “It is important to see what the president can escape.”

The hearing also revealed the striking new details of some of the most controversial actions of the army in Southern California this summer;

On August 12, Major General Scott Marshall Sherman confirmed that border patrol agents initially planned to target the park on Father’s Day – a decision saying that the expected crowds are very dangerous.

“There would be a large amount of people in the park,” Sherman said. “I could not approve of high risk.”

Experts said that sending troops to American cities is one of Trump’s dreams since the first period. The fear of expanding the use of soldiers for civilian police may be the first step for martial law.

“This is what Trump finds a pleasant reason, Lincoln said, Professor Eric J. Segall at Georgia State University Faculty of Law. “Trump wants to be Lincoln.”

The president has already pointed out the intention of expanding the use of the army.

“We will look at New York. And if necessary, we will do the same in Chicago,” Trump said at a press conference in August. “I hope he’s watching.”

For Breyer, the threat is existential.

“What’s there to prevent a national police force?” The judge said. “Is there any limit?”