9th Circuit sides with Trump administration on L.A. troop deployment

9. On Thursday, the US Circuit Court decided to leave the troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration, while California’s objections were sued in the Federal Court, and the President’s authority to place the army in American cities – although it was not a “opinion”.

Mark We do not agree with the primary argument that the decision of the defendants’ Federalizing members of the California National Guards of the President of the President of the President of the President of Honolulu, a Trump appointed Honolulu. “However, under the long -standing precedent interpreting the legal predecessor … We are convinced that our review of this decision should be extremely postponed.”

Legal academics said that the decision is expected – especially the 9th circuit has been the most “balanced” one of the most liberal of the country since the beginning of the first period of Trump.

Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at the University of Florida and Eric Merriam, said, “It is critical for people to understand how much power they give to the president through these regulations.”

“For hundreds of years, the judges have excessively respected the president in national security decisions, [including] The use of the army, ”the expert continued.

The appeal panel questioned both sides sharply at the hearing on Tuesday, and rejected the claim that the courts did not have the right to review the actions of the courts of the courts, and at the same time, California’s President Trump has exceeded the authority to question La’s rebellion against the authority of the United States.

Elizabeth Gouitein, Senior Director of the Freedom and National Security Program at the Brennan Justice Center of New York University, said, “All three judges looked skeptical to the arguments of each party in its most extreme state.”

Im I was impressed by the questions, ”he continued. “I think they were fair questions, I think they were difficult questions. I think judges were wrestling with the right problems.”

Thursday, the decision is largely returned the issue to US regional judge Charles R. Breyer.

Unlike Breyer, who would return the National Guards to California, the Temporary Restriction Order on June 12, the Court of Appeal avoids the question of whether the facts in Los Angeles were “rebellion ..

Instead, the decision focused on the limits of the Presidential power.

Bennett’s opinion directly rejected the argument by his assistant Atty. General Brett is the “non -review” decision of the federalization of the national guard troops at the hearing on Tuesday.

The judge, “the defendants claim that this language prevents examination,” he wrote. “[But Supreme Court precedent] It does not force us to accept the issue that the federal government can federalize the national guards of the president based on any evidence and that the courts cannot explicitly review a ridiculous or malicious decision. “

He also quoted and wrote the decision of the 1932 Supreme Court in Sterling and Constantin ”[t]That nature [president’s] The government also means that there is an honest range of judiciary which is permitted for measures to be gathered with force, to suppress violence and to restore order. ”

Shumate said that when the judge asked him at the hearing on Tuesday, he didn’t know the case.

“This is an important situation in these cases, and the fact that it is not aware of it is extraordinary.

Merriam accepted – to a point.

“This is a nightmare we have in this law school – a nightmare I live as a judge,” he said.

However, it is good that the lawyer representing the United States does not plan to talk about martial law in front of the 9th circuit, ”he said.

Something that the decision on Thursday does not touch is whether the administration has violated the Posse Comitatus Law by assigning the army to activate it as civil law enforcement officers – a claim that California levels in its original complaint.

“The claim of Posse Comitatus law was not solved on Thursday, not essentially matured on Thursday,” Goodin said. “Now it’s mature.”

“The 9th period agreed with the federal government about everything, even if we could see a decision that could limit the troops from the regional court to do on the ground next week,” he said.

In the meantime, an increasingly quieter Los Angeles residents will have to live with an increasing number of federal unions.

“[Congress] He did not limit the rebellion to certain types of real types, Mer Merriam said. [Angelenos] ‘This is crazy! There is no rebellion in Los Angeles right now, ‘We are here with the law.’