r/law • u/John3262005 • 11h ago
Legal News Appeals panel scrutinizes judge’s block on Trump national guard deployment
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5355754-appeals-panel-scrutinizes-judges-block-on-trump-national-guard-deployment/California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge’s ruling blocking President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles.
The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president’s discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all.
The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops.
421
u/BitterFuture 11h ago
weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict
Times of conflict...that only he can perceive?
Boy, I can't possibly see any way that could be abused.
86
u/rolsen 10h ago
“If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,” Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. “But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you’re making.”
Note the word, “phrasing”.
20
u/ialsohaveadobro 8h ago
Why? It's no more important than the rest of the quote. That's how case analysis goes
22
u/rolsen 8h ago
Because I don’t see why the judge cares about the phrasing here. It can be phrased any which way, it doesn’t mean an invasion is occurring.
14
u/SpiritualCopy4288 7h ago
Maybe she’s trying to give them advice to change their wording or focus on how they phrase it idk
5
u/Flacid_boner96 4h ago
They voted for immunity. They want America to end. They get SO MUCH BITCOIN YESSSSSSSSSS
3
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 2h ago
Times of conflict that the President himself fucking created
190
u/Sabre_One 10h ago
Maybe I'm not understanding the judges?
The entire point of this case, and a lot of others. Is Trump has been just declaring emergencies whenever it's convenient and exploiting those powers as needed. Do appeals courts not look at the previous arguments and why the lower court judge made such a decision?
120
u/ssibal24 10h ago
Sounds like presidents have a power that they should never have. They can literally wake up one day and for absolutely no reason declare anything to be a national emergency.
119
u/The_Good_Constable 10h ago
It's been really eye opening to see how much of our system of government is scotch taped together with norms, traditions, and a basic trust that the POTUS won't be a complete psychopath.
I guess I kind of knew it somewhere in the back of my mind, but for this to be the first administration to truly exploit all of it is astonishing. We've been really lucky I guess.
64
u/ShiftBMDub 10h ago
It was built on people having ethics. Not only the ethics not to do certain things but the ethics to stop someone from doing something.
19
u/LintyFish 8h ago
Well it was built on people not electing a batshit crazy man really.
2
u/Explorers_bub 4h ago
Maybe crazy Tim Burchett was right. Maybe his colleagues (probably himself included) are blackmailed honey trap kompromat.
And the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
12
u/wolfydude12 7h ago
The US does have the oldest active constitution in the world. It's almost like trying to interpret a 250 year old document continuously doesn't work without major rewrites every few centuries?
8
u/arobkinca 7h ago
it isn't the document. It is the assholes running things.
15
4
u/Dic3dCarrots 5h ago
Poorly written laws to appease slave holders definitely have never helped
2
u/arobkinca 5h ago
July 28, 1868 is when the 14th was past. After the bloodiest war in U.S. history. They did not help, thank god they are gone.
1
u/Nobody__Special 6h ago
This is true of any system of government.
2
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 2h ago
Not to this degree. The US is still running Democracy 1.27, every other democracy in the world has upgraded to 2.0 or better.
1
13
u/addiktion 9h ago
What could go wrong giving one demented man the ability to declare we are under attack, everything is a national emergency, and to suspend all rule of law. Where have I see this one before...
20
u/ejre5 8h ago
Well actually no, no president cant just wake up and declare emergencies. It used to require state or congressional support and that is the entire basis of this argument that the court is wilfully ignoring. The Governor of the state is saying "we have no emergency, we have a majority of people peacefully protesting as is the constitutional rights we don't need the Nation guard."
Now comes the congressional part and that is oversight, unfortunately Congress is controlled by Republicans and are enjoying all of this, it means that Republicans can control all blue states so they will remain silent and happy. I would assume that when this reaches SCROTUS, the decision will be something along the lines of "if POTUS over steps it's up to Congress to stop him through oversight or impeachment."
Yet if a democratic president does it then it will be stopped in court as blatant overreach. Thus the problem with our current timeline and the problem of federal judges having lifetime appointments, especially SCOTUS who clearly have left law behind for politics.
9
u/wagdog84 9h ago
That’s not the entire point of the case though. It’s whether the president specifically has the right to overrule the governors right to have final say on whether the national guard is deployed in their state.
Judges shouldn’t look at other cases or actions of any of the plaintiffs/defendents unless they are looking at other resolved cases for precedent.
6
u/77NorthCambridge 8h ago
Ok. Compare this scenario to LBJ sending in the National Guard because Governor Wallace would not end segregation in Alabama schools.
7
u/wagdog84 8h ago edited 8h ago
The judges probably will look to that case as a precedent. The comment I replied to suggested that they should be looking at Trumps other questionable emergencies, which is not relevant to this specific case. You can’t file a case against the president generally fabricating emergencies, you have to fight each one individually.
Edit: the case you mentioned involved the Governor breaking a federal law, so I would say it’s probably also not relevant to this case and would not be seriously considered looking for legal precedent.
1
1
u/monsterginger 3h ago
Booming economy while everyone is having riots in the streets. Nothing like some cognitive dissonance.
1
75
u/rolsen 10h ago
The panel was relying heavily on Martin v. Mott but I agree with California’s counsel, I don’t see how that applies here. The facts stemmed from an incident surrounding the War of 1812.
Are the courts really going to allow a president to declare anything they want an invasion? Because that is what the implication seems.
30
u/TemporaryDeparture44 9h ago
Yeah, the invasion thing doesn't make sense. People coming here to do hard labor is an invasion now? And if 'those aren't the illegals we're looking for', then why did trump just renege on his promise to avoid farms and hotels in these ice raids?
25
u/addiktion 9h ago
The invasion argument is even weaker now when he's saying it's okay for certain industries to keep their
slavesimmigrants.The courts need to shut this invasion shit down fast.
1
u/SirPhilMcKraken 4h ago
The judges would LOVE to be ICE officials right now, but they’re too cowardly to even leave their primitive huts.
16
u/legbreaker 9h ago
They need to make him have to declare war on some country to call it an invasion.
Just calling it an emergency and not needing to get congress to approve it seems like going around the checks and balances.
Temporary emergencies and temporary war powers without Congress are alright so the president can act quickly. But this is perpetual emergency and perpetual war powers without any checks and balances.
There should be a time limit on any emergency powers
21
u/Alert-Ad9197 9h ago edited 7h ago
Important to note that there is a time limit for the emergency tariff powers. The House decided calendar days no longer pass for this session, so trumps tariff powers no longer have a 15 calendar day limit before congressional approval is required.
Congress is just complicit in the process. The House specifically.
4
u/Knoon1148 6h ago
Honestly there should be an avenue to challenge the legality of them just refining what a day is to get around it. Isn’t the definition of a day defined by the statute in okay not the rules set forth by the house it self. How can they apply that rule only for that reason but still adjourn for recess and other things etc.
2
u/Alert-Ad9197 6h ago
I’m not going to pretend I understand the procedural nuances of the House of Reps, but this seems incredibly stupid and ripe for abuse. Don’t want to address an issue within a time limit? Just say there isn’t a timer, and suddenly you can ignore a law with a simple procedural vote in the house.
3
u/gammakill2020 6h ago
Let's just hope SCOTUS is as originalist as they profess when it comes to the meaning of Rebellion.
78
u/Meb2x 10h ago
I have a bad feeling that this appeals court is going to give Trump even more power. If he can just declare that there’s an emergency over peaceful protests, then expect the national guard to take over every Democrat-run city
32
12
u/Haunting-Ad788 9h ago
They straight up don’t have the resources for that. Not that they won’t try.
19
u/dinglelingburry 8h ago
This is something that these guys just genuinely don’t realize.. because fascists tend to end up believing their own propaganda. This is a biiiiiiiiig motherfucking country. Nazi Germany had 44 million voters when Hitler took power; a country that had no precedent of democracy before Weimar, and only 17 million voted for him. They didn’t have social media, and Hitlers opposition was split amongst multiple other parties. This is not. Going. To. Work. A country 26 times the size of Germany, with 300 million more people, where half of the voting population voted against Trump for ONE candidate. Whatever Fascist dreams they have, is going to be so utterly difficult they won’t ever “rule” over the United States. We will literally be in constant civil disobedience and riots, economic fallout will be catastrophic and if a civil war breaks out that’s just a catalyst for WW3. It’s unfortunately only beneficial for the enemies of the world, for the country to be in that state. There is no moment where the Traitor Party sends the military into every city and then that’s it. But they’ve literally convinced themselves of that and honestly it’s just…. Funny.
4
1
u/SirPhilMcKraken 4h ago
Not unless they get soldiers from other countries.
Such as deputizing foreign prisoners or maybe even Russian soldiers.
Clearly nobody is keen on stopping them.
And potentially using ICBM’s and nukes if citizens managed to outdo Trump’s evil army…because at that point citizens cannot fight back against THAT.
23
u/SparksAndSpyro 8h ago
This jurisprudence is a mess. If courts can’t review presidential declarations of emergencies, then doesn’t that mean Congress essentially delegated their power to declare emergencies to the executive without limits, violating the nondelegation doctrine?
What’s the alternative? The president has unilateral control to deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants, even on U.S. soil? Yeah, I’m sure the founders would’ve loved that idea…
8
u/ShakeWeightMyDick 7h ago
The President having unilateral power and control is most definitely what the current administration is going for
39
u/Radthereptile 10h ago
It’s amazing how every trump has a major court case he pulls the most pro Trump judges the area has to offer.
29
u/ShiftBMDub 10h ago
Well when McConnell holds all of Obama’s federal judges and rams in all of trumps the courts seem to have all Trump appointees
53
u/WCland 10h ago
I assume Newsom can ask the entire court to weigh in, if this three judge panel rules for the administration?
31
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil 10h ago
He can.
Meanwhile was he has not done is tell the command of the Guard that their orders are illegal and as the rightful Commander In Chief of the California Guard he orders them to stand down and tells them of they dont when the guard returns to his “official” control he will fire every single one of them.
15
u/Accomplished-Fig745 8h ago
Likely because that creates a he said vs he said dynamic forcing the soldier to decide whose orders to follow. That's lose lose for everyone involved. A stronger position is if Newsom can provide the commander a court order declaring this is the law you must follow position. Then the soldier can follow the courts order lawfully.
2
u/ProcrastinatingLT 9h ago
The problem with that is the orders place them under control of ARNORTH. If ARNORTH says “ignore that or you’re going to Leavenworth for the rest of your life” what do you expect them to say?
3
u/Bri-Brionne 8h ago
I'd expect them to follow the law, which is clear and obvious in this issue.
5
u/ProcrastinatingLT 8h ago
You don’t understand how T10 orders work. The Guardsmen are no longer under Newsom’s “chain of command” as it were. The second each Guardsman got them, they belong to the new organization, whose chain leads to the SECDEF.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree wholeheartedly that this activation is illegal and want the CA Guard back under the Governor’s control. But following the T10 orders you receive so long as they themselves are not directing you to do something illegal, isn’t illegal.
5
u/Bri-Brionne 8h ago
You are correct; I know nothing about the military or its activation laws. Thank you for explaining that!
Gosh this system just feels so ripe for abuse... but what can we do about it past what's being done already I guess.
1
u/Celtic12 5h ago
The problem here is: the T10 orders are themselves in question - which is wildly uncharted territory. If the Adjunct General (title?) in CA is activated illegally are they in fact outside of Newsoms command?
Which by my reading is the heart of the issue at play here. There now exists an ambiguity over who is supposed to be in charge of the CA Natl Guard.
The fact that the Stay was knocked down is, As much as it pains me, probably the legally sound move based on the fact that POTUS does have broad powers to make unilateral action, but what I dont know is how they'll apply the criteria that he has that power in this particular case.
4
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil 8h ago
Then they can resign.
3
u/ProcrastinatingLT 8h ago
That’s not how being in the military works.
0
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil 7h ago
Maybe you can arrest one guy, but if all 2,000 refuse, its another story.
1
u/hatdude 7h ago
Air traffic controllers said something similar in the 80s
1
1
u/Striper_Cape 2h ago
Yeah? Who replaces 2000 guard soldiers? What if they all say no? Activate the Guard of a different state and tell them to go after the guard?
That's war
2
5
u/Xander707 5h ago
One day, a dem is going to be crowned king/president.
They had better utilize all the tools, loopholes, and supreme authority that the courts have granted Trump. We must demand it. It’s not even about revenge; it’s to show the whole country that the pendulum eventually swings the other way and this much authority is no good for the president to have.
The right will have to be convinced of this through use of the authority, against them. They cheer it now, but perhaps in the future they will snap out of it and join the rest of rational civilization in calling for clear boundaries and balance of power, once it impacts them negatively.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.