Judge Dismisses Newsom’s Request to Block Military Deployment in LA
(MENAFN) A federal judge on Tuesday afternoon dismissed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s urgent request to immediately block the Trump administration’s deployment of military forces in Los Angeles, delivering a setback to the state’s challenge against federal control over domestic troop operations.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines from beginning patrols in the city right away. Instead, Breyer allowed the Trump administration until 2:00 p.m. Wednesday to respond to California’s emergency motion.
California officials argued the deployment violated federal statutes, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars active-duty military personnel from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.
In the Tuesday morning motion, Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted the military presence caused “immediate and irreparable harm” to state sovereignty.
Federal attorneys dismissed Newsom’s request as “legally meritless,” cautioning that blocking the deployment would be “extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous.”
They contended such a move would “jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the Federal Government’s ability to carry out operations.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the military mission will continue for 60 days, with an expected price tag of $134 million. This deployment ranks among the largest domestic military actions in recent years.
Judge Breyer, brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m. Thursday local time to review California’s motion. The Trump administration must file its opposition brief by 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, with California allowed to reply by Thursday morning.
Should Breyer rule against the state, California may appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds a slight Democratic majority. Regardless of the temporary restraining order’s fate, California’s broader lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the deployment will proceed.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
