In conclusion
Governor Gavin Newsom claims that when the Trump administration sent military units to Los Angeles in June, it violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a legislation from the 19th century.
Greetings from CalMatters, the only nonprofit news organization dedicated exclusively to reporting on topics that impact all Californians. To get the most recent information and analysis on the most significant topics in the Golden State, sign up for WhatMatters.
When the U.S. military was sent to Los Angeles in June on President Donald Trump’s and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s orders, did they unlawfully practice civilian law enforcement?
Yes, say Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom of California. The Department of Justice for Trump says no. With ramifications for the nation as Trump continues to express a desire to send military to monitor domestic city streets, the three-day trial to answer this question is set to start today at 10 a.m. in a federal district court in California.As the head of a task team on the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, the president assured reporters that he would use the military or National Guard to ensure the safety of the games.
In a related motion, California attorneys informed the court that on August 5, the Department of Defense issued a fresh activation order to deploy troops in California for an additional ninety days. That occurred a week after the Trump administration demobilized the majority of the National Guard and two weeks after the Marines deployed to Los Angeles.In their filings, which are frequently redacted due to court orders, California attorneys present evidence showing the military participated in law enforcement activities in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a law from the 19th century. They want a judge to impose a permanent stop order on the Trump administration. The Trump Department of Justice responds that those actions are more appropriate for assisting immigration law enforcement officers or safeguarding government buildings than they are for law enforcement.The Insurrection Act, which permits the military to carry out law enforcement operations, has not been invoked by Trump.
How did we get here?
The June lawsuit that Newsom launched against Trump following the president’s takeover of California’s National Guard is being extended by this trial. Trump took that action in response to demonstrations that erupted in the Los Angeles region following the start of labor raids by immigration law enforcement officials to detain people who were purportedly in the country without the required documentation.In the end, roughly 700 U.S. Marines and 4,000 members of the California National Guard were sent to Los Angeles.The relationship between Newsom and Trump reached a new low point that month. The president was compared to failed tyrants by the governor.The concept of arresting Newsom was approved by Trump.Judge Charles Breyer, who presided over the June hearings and heard Monday’s case, first concurred with Newsom and ordered Trump to give the governor back control of the National Guard. That move was halted by a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They discovered that the Trump administration had rightfully deployed military to defend government employees and buildings from certain demonstrators who were using garbage bins as battering rams and throwing concrete chunks. Lawyers from California claimed that the troops’ presence heightened the demonstrations.Los Angeles is about 500 square miles, and the June protests were mostly limited to a few city blocks in the downtown area and lasted for about a week.In order to support California’s claim that the Trump administration was breaking the law prohibiting the military from serving as a police force, Breyer then gave Californian attorneys permission to remove Trump officials from office and collect documents. The attorneys for Trump’s Department of Justice attempted, but were unable, to halt the trial.
What is California s latest allegation?
Because federal troops and federal immigration officials frequently worked side by side, Los Angeles citizens were subjected to a kind of military occupation.According to the attorneys, the federal government has never used the military for domestic law enforcement in this way in the history of the country.California attorneys with the state attorney general’s office wrote to Breyer that the Trump administration’s assertion that perimeters, blockades, and other security measures are acceptable makes it obvious that they will keep doing so.
“There would be no logical basis to preclude members of the Armed Forces from accompanying other law enforcement agents when performing their duties if military forces can accompany U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their raids and arrests, as had been happening in Los Angeles,” the California lawyers wrote. They said that military forces might go with federal voting rights authorities to monitor election polling stations, federal food safety inspectors, or federal investigators of medical fraud.
What are California s examples of the military acting as police?
State attorneys cited a number of incidents in which they claim troops overreached themselves and broke the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military in civilian contexts:
-
California attorneys deposed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field director
who said
National Guard soldiers accompanied immigration officers on as many as 75% of their missions.
-
Troops accompanied a federal agency during a
law enforcement operation
at a cannabis facility in Riverside County and formed a security perimeter that prevented people from leaving the site.
-
Troops allegedly
formed security perimeters
on July 7 during a demonstration at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles during raids at cannabis farms in Ventura County.
-
In
two incidents
, military service members detained civilians, the California lawyers wrote. One took place in Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County, where National Guard troops allegedly apprehended a protester. In the other, a Marine on June 13 allegedly detained someone at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles.
-
California attorneys collected testimony from the deputy chief of staff of the military unit in Los Angeles who said the National Guard
is subject
to Posse Comitatus and cannot engage in civilian law enforcement.
-
The attorneys point to military-issued guidance that directly providing security functions for civilian law enforcement agents is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,
per their summary
. But, the lawyers note, the military unit in L.A. was ordered to actively provide security during civil law enforcement operations on a near-continuous basis since the deployment began, the California lawyers wrote.
How does the federal government respond?
California is incorrect, according to the federal government, for four reasons. There are disagreements about the facts California’s legal team is providing, as well as disagreements over technical court procedures.
-
Federal lawyers wrote that Posse Comitatus is
a criminal statute
, which cannot be used in a civil case, and the lawsuit is civil, not criminal.
-
They dispute that the president or the Department of Defense exceeded its authority in ordering the troops to assist federal immigration law enforcement in apprehensions. As Supreme Court precedent makes clear, the (Posse Comitatus Act) does not prohibit the President from using troops to protect federal personnel and property, the
Trump administration lawyers wrote
.
-
The federal lawyers also say California has
no standing to sue
. (California s attorneys
dispute this
.)
-
Fourth, the lawyers say that the National Guard can act as a police force because the law Trump cited to federalize them
permits the National Guard
to execute the laws of the United States if the president is unable to do that with regular forces, which at minimum
means enforcing
federal immigration laws as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property, the federal lawyers wrote.
Additionally, the attorneys contest that the military’s role qualifies as law enforcement. Lawyers in California claim that a protester was momentarily held by the Marines. However, the Marines turned the person over to the LAPD minutes after the government attorneys wrote that the move was taken to protect federal property because the person had repeatedly tried to enter a restricted area on federal property.Additionally, the federal lawyers claimed that establishing a perimeter for federal immigration law enforcement does not violate Posse Comitatus because, according to a prior federal court, the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to federal troops participating passively in civilian enforcement operations.
What is likely to happen after this trial?
You can’t predict how Breyer will rule. He had already taken California’s side, but his orders were blocked by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.Furthermore, the Trump administration’s interpretation of immigration law is not primarily influenced by the military. Through its several organizations, such as the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security fulfills that function.
A lower district court judge temporarily barred such agencies from making arrests in Southern California on the grounds of race, ethnicity, language, and place of employment. The goal of the action was to prevent roving immigration stops in the most populated area of California.
That block was maintained by a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trump administration filed an appeal last week asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the restraining order issued by the lower court.
More on Newsom Vs. Trump
Taken: What happens after an LA immigration raid
What it s like to be in downtown LA as protests continue: We ve never seen it like this
CalMatters has further information.
Text
Receive breaking news on your mobile device.
Get it here
Use our app to stay up to date.
Register
Get free updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Nonpartisan, independent California news for all
CalMatters is your impartial, nonprofit news source.
Our goal remains crucial, and our journalists are here to empower you.
-
We are independent and nonpartisan.
Our trustworthy journalism is free from partisan politics, free from corporate influence and actually free for all Californians. -
We are focused on California issues.
From the environment to homelessness, economy and more, we publish the unfettered truth to keep you informed. -
We hold people in power accountable.
We probe and reveal the actions and inactions of powerful people and institutions, and the consequences that follow.
However, without the help of readers like you, we are unable to continue.
Give what you can now, please. Every gift makes a difference.
