A federal judge in San Francisco appeared unconvinced after a three-day trial that the continued deployment of federalized members of California’s National Guard — who have been initially deployed to Los Angeles in response to protests towards President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda — is lawful.
US District Judge Charles Breyer particularly questioned Justice Department attorneys on Wednesday on the challenge of what limits exist to control the use of federal legislation enforcement to guard federal buildings and staff, as the DOJ alleges is the case with the almost 300 remaining troops on the floor in California.
“Once you have a force in place, and maybe legitimately do so, and the threat that gave rise to the force in that place subsides, or is no longer of serious concern, what then?” Breyer requested a Justice Department lawyer on Wednesday. “How does one look at this national police force, which goes out of where the threat was and starts executing other laws?”
The feedback from Breyer got here on the ultimate day of a three-day bench trial about how a number of thousand members of California’s National Guard have been used after Trump federalized them in June as dramatic protests unfolded in Los Angeles.
Breyer didn’t say when he’ll rule, however his feedback Wednesday recommend some sympathy for arguments pushed by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued Trump in June to dam the deployment.
“It’s not that I’m sitting here insensitive to the risk of federal employees,” Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, stated. “I’m trying to see whether there are limits, any limits, to the use of federal force to ameliorate that risk.”
After scoring an preliminary win from Breyer in June, Newsom’s case took a major hit when a federal appeals court docket stated that Trump can preserve management of the federalized troops whereas the authorized problem performs out, ruling that the president seemingly acted lawfully.
But a serious declare at the heart of Newsom’s case remained unaddressed by the two courts: whether or not the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act — a nineteenth century legislation prohibiting the use of the US navy for home legislation enforcement — in the months since their preliminary deployment.
Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton argued that there is no mechanism or precedent to problem the legislation that Trump used to deploy the National Guard members, however Breyer interrupted him to ask, “What is the likelihood that in England in 1776 there would be an action, law or remedy to restrain the king of England?”
Breyer expressed particular concern that the Justice Department’s logic would open the door to the deployment of federal officers all over the place that the president “determines that there is some threat to the safety of a federal agent.”
Later, an lawyer for the state of California, Meghan Strong, addressed the judge’s questions about 1776, citing James Madison.
“What James Madison would have done, and what he did, was to draft a constitution that made sure that the president could never employ standing armies to control civilian life as the King had in 1776,” Strong stated.
“And the Posse Comitatus Act is merely a statutory embodiment of a longstanding historical principle and policy in our nation against the use of the military in the way the federal government is using the military here in LA,” she added.
Since June, deployed troops have accompanied federal brokers on immigration raids in the LA area and have briefly detained civilians who tried to enter restricted areas.
Hamilton argued that the federalized guard and Marines have been serving a “purely protective function” in California, one thing not barred by the Posse Comitatus Act.
But Breyer didn’t appear swayed by this, repeating his concern over the limits of federal legislation enforcement exercise as soon as it is already in place.
“What’s to prevent a national police force, if properly in place as a result of certain things that have happened on day one, to go out on day 10, day 20, day 30, month two, month three, month four and assist the execution of other laws for other crimes?” the judge requested. “Is there any limiting factor at all?”