Just hours after President Donald Trump said he would deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C., a federal judge in San Francisco heard arguments Monday about whether the administration violated federal law when it mobilized troops to Los Angeles this summer.
California is asking U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom and to stop using the military “to execute or assist in the execution of federal law.”
The federal government is arguing that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines was solely to support immigration officials, who were impeded by large-scale protests across the city in early June.
In response, the Department of Defense ordered some 4,000 California National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as thousands of immigration activists and supporters marched in the streets and outside federal buildings to show their opposition to Trump’s mass deportation effort.
Trump characterized the demonstrators as violent mobs, but Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom maintained that local law enforcement was equipped to handle the protests.
Trump said the troops would protect federal personnel and property and would not engage in law enforcement activities. About 250 National Guard members remain on duty, according to the Pentagon.
The state sued the Trump administration for what it called an unwarranted deployment and won an early victory from Breyer, who found the federal government had violated the 10th Amendment clarifying the balance of power between federal and state governments.
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that courts cannot second-guess the president’s orders. The U.S. Department of Justice secured a temporary halt to Breyer’s ruling, which allowed control of the California National Guard to remain with Trump.
Central to the trial is the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the president from using the military as a domestic police force. The case, which is expected to continue through Wednesday, could set a precedent for how the Trump administration handles future deployments of federal troops in D.C., Baltimore and other cities led by Democratic mayors. (Newsom and Bass are Democrats.)
“The factual question, which the court must address, is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that will be done again,” Breyer told the court.
The first of three witnesses to testify Monday was William Harrington, the former deputy chief of staff for the Army task force overseeing the Los Angeles operation.
Harrington, who did not participate in or witness work in the field, said he raised concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act on June 7 during a task force briefing before federal forces arrived in Los Angeles.
During questioning by state Deputy Attorney General Jane Reilley, Harrington said he worried that if the California National Guard was deployed, it would lose law enforcement authority because of the statute and be reduced to a supportive role.
That was the case when federal forces accompanied immigration agents to separate operations at Los Angeles’ MacArthur Park and a cannabis cultivation center in Camarillo, north of L.A., Harrington said.
“They were asked to provide force protection for the agents while they were performing their federal functions,” he said under cross-examination. “The soldiers actually did not engage in any activity.”
Prior to deploying at MacArthur Park on July 7, when federal officers and National Guard troops fanned out across the mostly empty space, Harrington received an intelligence report that did “not indicate a high-value target or threat to federal functions at this location,” he said.
Still, some 90 Guard members were among the forces seen plodding through the popular park where children with a day camp played.
“What I saw in the park today looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation,” Bass said at the time.
Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, commander of the Los Angeles task force, said in court that federal forces have outnumbered local police officers on some occasions.
During an immigration enforcement action in Mecca, a desert community about 142 miles east of Los Angeles, approximately 300 task force soldiers were present, compared to 200 federal law enforcement agents, Sherman said.
Breyer appeared to bristle on multiple occasions, at one point arguing with both Sherman and DOJ attorneys about whether federal forces can intervene any time people protest a law they dislike.
“What about tax law?” he asked Sherman.
“We’ve never had a situation like that, your honor,” Sherman replied.
“I’m trying to figure out really what boundaries are established” by law, Breyer tersely responded.
Ernesto Santacruz Jr., field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, testified that federal intervention was necessary because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd of 1,500 gathered outside the federal building on June 6 to protest immigration arrests.
The crowds made it difficult for his agents to do their work, including entering a building where detained immigrants are held, he said.
“We had to pivot, and we had to pretty much condense teams to have a larger footprint,” Santacruz said in court. “That impacted our ability to conduct our missions.”
Lawyers with the DOJ asked Breyer for a quick judgment at the end of the day, arguing that the state had failed to make its case. The trial resumes Tuesday morning.
The post Legality of Trump’s deployment of National Guard in L.A. is argued in federal court appeared first on NBC News.
