California's National Guard Troops at the Mercy of Judge's Ruling
A federal judge presided over California's lawsuit against President Trump's authority over the state's National Guard, raising questions about the legitimacy of the Trump administration's decision to deploy thousands of troops to Los Angeles in June.
The move was met with swift opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom, who described it as an unprecedented and illegal act. The federal government argued that the president has the power to extend control over state guard troops as long as he deems necessary under federal law, but Judge Charles Breyer's skepticism suggests that this justification may not hold up.
Breyer questioned whether the administration could command the state's National Guard indefinitely, stating "No crisis lasts forever. I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go. That's the way it works." He also pressed an attorney for the government to provide evidence of California authorities' inability or unwillingness to protect federal personnel and property in Los Angeles.
The remaining troops were deployed to allow immigration agents to continue their mission and protect federal property, but Breyer seems unconvinced by this rationale. The court is now considering a preliminary injunction to return control of the National Guard troops to the state.
This case marks a significant escalation in President Trump's efforts to carry out his mass deportation policy, with the deployment of the California National Guard being the first time a state's guard has been activated without a request from its governor. The situation has sparked debate about the limits of presidential power and the role of the military in domestic affairs.
Breyer's ruling comes after he previously ruled that the deployment was illegal, but an appeals court panel put this decision on hold. With Breyer now questioning the federal government's authority, it remains to be seen whether California will succeed in its bid to regain control over its National Guard troops.
A federal judge presided over California's lawsuit against President Trump's authority over the state's National Guard, raising questions about the legitimacy of the Trump administration's decision to deploy thousands of troops to Los Angeles in June.
The move was met with swift opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom, who described it as an unprecedented and illegal act. The federal government argued that the president has the power to extend control over state guard troops as long as he deems necessary under federal law, but Judge Charles Breyer's skepticism suggests that this justification may not hold up.
Breyer questioned whether the administration could command the state's National Guard indefinitely, stating "No crisis lasts forever. I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go. That's the way it works." He also pressed an attorney for the government to provide evidence of California authorities' inability or unwillingness to protect federal personnel and property in Los Angeles.
The remaining troops were deployed to allow immigration agents to continue their mission and protect federal property, but Breyer seems unconvinced by this rationale. The court is now considering a preliminary injunction to return control of the National Guard troops to the state.
This case marks a significant escalation in President Trump's efforts to carry out his mass deportation policy, with the deployment of the California National Guard being the first time a state's guard has been activated without a request from its governor. The situation has sparked debate about the limits of presidential power and the role of the military in domestic affairs.
Breyer's ruling comes after he previously ruled that the deployment was illegal, but an appeals court panel put this decision on hold. With Breyer now questioning the federal government's authority, it remains to be seen whether California will succeed in its bid to regain control over its National Guard troops.
The whole thing reeks of a massive power grab by the feds. I mean, what's next? The president just telling California where it can and can't send its cops? 
It's like they're trying to set a precedent for total federal control over state militias. This is a disaster waiting to happen, folks...
idk how a president can just send thousands of troops to a state without asking the governor first? like, what's next? florida sending army tanks to new york because they don't like the mayor's policies? seems like a major power grab to me... and what about all the california ppl who were living their lives, unaware of trump's plans? did they just magically become enemies of the state now? 
judge breyer's skepticism is definitely warranted here.
The whole thing feels super fishy. And now they're asking for a preliminary injunction to get the troops back... it's just a mess. I don't think we should be worried about this guy's power or anything 
.
.
. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out 