DOJ legal arguments over LA troop deployment met with skepticism at trial
The article reports on a recent federal trial in San francisco where the Justice Department (DOJ) faced skepticism from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer regarding the legality of President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to los Angeles in June. The case centers on weather the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from being used for ordinary law enforcement purposes. During the trial, the DOJ argued that the deployment was lawful because the troops served a protective function for federal property and officials, a role they claimed does not violate the Act. However,Judge Breyer questioned this reasoning,particularly noting the DOJ’s position that the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute without a civil enforcement mechanism,meaning there may be no legal remedy even if a violation occurred. The judge expressed concern about the implications of such an interpretation. Earlier, breyer had issued an injunction against the deployment, which was later stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending appeal. The trial focused specifically on the Posse Comitatus Act allegations. The DOJ requested a brief stay if breyer ruled against them, and no ruling has yet been issued. Most National Guard troops have as been withdrawn, with around 250 remaining in Los Angeles.
DOJ legal arguments over LA troop deployment met with skepticism at trial
The Justice Department was met with skepticism from a federal judge this week during a multiday trial over the legality of President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in June.
The trial centered on whether the president’s deployment of troops to protect federal property and officials after unrest over immigration operations violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from being used for regular law enforcement activities. Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California heard arguments during a three-day trial in a San Francisco courtroom.
Breyer questioned Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton as arguments concluded Wednesday, specifically pressing him about claims by the DOJ that the federal law at question in the trial is a criminal statute and has no civil enforcement remedy. When asked if the president could be charged criminally over a Posse Comitatus Act, Hamilton said such a prosecution would run into “immunity issues.”
“So that’s? ‘It’s too bad, so sad,’ it’s over and that’s the end of the case, even though it’s a violation, allegedly, of the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer said, questioning the DOJ’s argument. “What you’re saying is, here is a statute that basically under the present jurisprudence that we have today, to which there would be no remedy?”
Breyer also asked what limits were placed on the use of force by the troops that were deployed.
“Consistent with the arguments we’ve made throughout this litigation, National Guard, Marines were serving a purely protective function, and a protective function is not something that the Posse Comitatus Act proscribes,” Hamilton said.
Hamilton argued “the bottom line conclusion” is “that when military service members protect federal law enforcement officers, that is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.”
The DOJ has already faced one loss from Breyer in the legal battle brought by California officials over the deployment. In June, Breyer granted an injunction blocking the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, but a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quickly paused it and later unanimously blocked Breyer’s ruling pending appeal.
While the appeals court took most of the jurisdiction of the case, Breyer determined it had not examined the state’s claims of a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and proceeded to this week’s trial on that complaint.
LEGALITY OF TRUMP’S NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT TO LOS ANGELES ON TRIAL
The DOJ asked at Wednesday’s trial that, if Breyer sides with the state, he grant an immediate seven-day stay to allow the DOJ to appeal the ruling. Breyer did not issue a ruling at the conclusion of the trial and did not set a timeline for when he will issue a ruling.
The appeals court reviewing the rest of the lawsuit by California officials against the Trump administration has not set a timeline for the next hearing in that case.
Since deploying thousands of troops in June, Trump has withdrawn the vast majority of them, leaving 250 National Guard personnel behind.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
