"The decision came as the result of a case known as Newsom v Trump, named for California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose administration filed the lawsuit in June. Newsom has emerged as one of Trump's most prominent critics, and he has been floated as a possible Democratic contender in the 2028 presidential elections. He and California Attorney General Rob Bonta had argued that Trump's decision to send nearly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 US Marines to the Los Angeles area in June violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military for civilian law enforcement."
"Still, Breyer wrote that Trump's deployment to southern California was unprecedented. He also questioned Trump's rationale that the protests constituted a rebellion that needed to be quashed. There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence, Breyer wrote. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law."
A federal judge issued an injunction blocking the deployment of military forces to southern California, with the ruling taking effect on September 12 and no immediate troop withdrawals. The case arose from Newsom v Trump after California officials challenged the June deployment of nearly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. The challenge alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military use for civilian law enforcement. The judge described the federalization and deployment as unprecedented, questioned the characterization of the protests as a rebellion, and found that presidential authority was exceeded and the statute was willfully violated.
Read at www.aljazeera.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]