Anti-Ice protest: appeal court block first decision; All allows Trump to command the California guard

The appeal court on Thursday evening approved the petition of the Trump Administration to maintain the deployment of National Guard soldiers of California amid protests by Los Angeles, which was provisionally suspended by the federal judge issued earlier that day. The initial decision had directed President Donald Trump to renounce the control of the soldiers back to California Governor Gavin Newsom.US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump illegally sent the soldiers, stating that the President had abolished his statutory authority and violated the tenth amendment to the US Constitution. Breyer ordered the federal government to quit control, but gave its order by Friday afternoon. This inspired the government to quickly appeal in the US Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit, which allowed a stay. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.Asked to comment, the Governor’s office referred to Newsom’s previous comments that he “believes in the rule of law.”The legal dispute arose from California, a lawsuit filed against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Defense Department earlier this week. The state wants to limit the role of National Guard and Marine in Los Angeles, allowing them to protect only federal features and personnel. It asked for a temporary order limiting military functions and questioned the President’s rights to deploy soldiers in California without the input or consent of the governor.The Trump administration has deployed 4,100 National Guard members and Marines to respond to protests with 2,100 guard members in the LA area. According to the US Northern Command, the force is part of the Task Force 51, which has been tasked to protect federal property and functions.Newsom, a democrats of Trump, and frequent critics, emphasized that their request was not to stop the military mission, but “our communities are likely to be” narrow relief to avoid irreparable losses and as a result of the law of law, if the defendants are allowed to use marine and federal national guards, which are allowed to apply our interactions and other civil laws.,In court, the Trump administration labeled California’s request at the request of “legally qualification”, arguing that it would compromise the security of the Department of Homeland security personnel and disrupt federal operations.In the decision of his 36-footing, Breyer criticized the administration’s approach, saying that the “continuous illegal militaryization” of Los Angeles increased stress and violence. He admitted that the courts typically postponed the national security and foreign policy to the presidents, but confirmed that domestic military deployment is subject to judicial inspection.Breyer dismissed the characterization of the administration of demonstrations as a rebellion, given that some protesters were violent, the events “a violent, armed, organized, open and revolted as a whole against the government.The judge also criticized the administration’s claim that local and state leaders had lost control, claiming that the federal government could not eliminate state police power due to dissatisfaction with the speed of enforcement or strategy. At a post-spreading news conference, Newsom revived the spirit of Brey, saying, “There is no attack. There is no rebellion. It is absurd.” He explained the issue as a “test of democracy”, saying that Trump has been confirmed that Trump is not above the constitutional boundaries. During the hearing, a former watergate prosecutor and retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s brother, Judge Breyer read from Article II of the US Constitution, underlined the executive boundaries. “This is the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said. “It’s not that a leader can just say something and it becomes.” Some protests in Los Angeles have seen clashes, looting and arson after a recent immigration raid, although most of the city has been unaffected. The administration overwhelmed the city, while the state and local officials said they were able to manage the situation and accused the federal government of increasing unrest. Judge Breair set another hearing for June 20 and ordered the federal government to present an argument against an initial prohibition.