一名联邦法官阻止了唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统在洛杉矶移民突袭抗议期间部署加州国民警卫队(California National Guard)部队的举动，称此举“非法”，并命令特朗普政府将加州国民警卫队的控制权归还给州长加文·纽瑟姆。
法官的命令，这并不限制特朗普对海军陆战队的使用，要到星期五中午才生效。特朗普政府立即提起上诉。
“在诉讼的早期阶段，法院必须确定总统的行动是否遵循了国会授权的程序。他没有，”美国地方法官查尔斯·布雷耶在他的命令批准纽森申请的临时限制令。“他的行为是非法的——既超越了他的法定权限，也违反了美国宪法第十修正案。因此，他必须立即将加利福尼亚国民警卫队的控制权交还给加利福尼亚州州长。”
在…里社交媒体上的声明，纽瑟姆写道，“法院只是证实了我们都知道的事情:军队属于战场，而不是我们的城市街道。
纽瑟姆和司法部长罗布·邦塔(Rob Bonta)周二提交了一份紧急请求，要求阻止他们所说的特朗普和国防部的“不必要”和“非法军事化”，此前特朗普周末发布了一份备忘录，在抗议活动中向洛杉矶部署了2000多名国民警卫队士兵——这遭到了纽瑟姆和其他州及地方官员的反对。
在他的命令中，法官指出了抗议者的第一修正案权利，并说，“仅仅因为一些流浪的坏演员走得太远，并不能消除每个人的权利。抗议者可以如此迅速地跨越受保护行为和‘反抗美国政府权威’之间的界限，这种想法是站不住脚的，也是危险的，”他写道。
布雷耶写道，洛杉矶的抗议活动“远未达到”合法的“叛乱”要求，以证明联邦部署是合理的。他写道，叛乱需要武装、暴力、有组织、公开，并以推翻政府为目标。他发现，加州的抗议活动不符合这些条件。
“原告和洛杉矶市民面临着他们城市持续非法军事化的更大伤害，这不仅加剧了与抗议者的紧张关系，有可能增加敌对行动和生命损失，而且在两个月内剥夺了该州使用数千名国民警卫队成员灭火、打击芬太尼贸易和执行其他重要职能的权利，”法官在命令中写道。
“不管这个案件或任何其他案件的结果如何，光是这一点就有可能严重损害联邦和州政府之间的宪法权力平衡，并为未来的国内军事活动开创了一个危险的先例，”法官写道。
大约4，000名国民警卫队队员和700名海军陆战队队员被派往洛杉矶地区抗议移民突袭。加州领导人声称，特朗普在不必要的时候派出军队，煽动了抗议活动。
抗议活动已经蔓延到其他城市，包括波士顿、芝加哥和西雅图。
为了向洛杉矶派遣数千名国民警卫队队员，特朗普援引了《美国武装部队法典》第10篇第12406条，该条款允许联邦部署应对“反对美国政府权威的叛乱或叛乱危险”。特朗普在命令中表示，军队将保护联邦财产和正在履行职能的联邦人员。
法官没有决定军队可能参与移民执法-在突袭中与ICE特工一起出现-是否违反了1878年的Posse Comitatus法案，该法案禁止军队执行民事执法。法官说，他将在下周的听证会上听取关于这一点的更多辩论。
在周四早些时候的法庭听证会上，布雷耶在周四70分钟的听证会上说，摆在他面前的主要问题是总统是否遵守第10条法令，以及国民警卫队是否“适当地联邦化”
联邦政府坚持认为总统确实遵守了，同时也认为该法令不可由法院审理，总统有完全的酌处权。法官被要求不要发布“撤销总统军事判决”的禁令。
与此同时，代表加利福尼亚州和纽瑟姆的律师表示，他们的立场是，国民警卫队没有合法地联邦化，总统在一个平民城市的街道上部署军队以应对被认为的不服从是一种“膨胀的、危险的联邦行政权概念”。
邦塔还在紧急文件中辩称，特朗普未能满足这种联邦部署的法律要求。
“说白了，洛杉矶没有入侵和叛乱;邦塔写道:“国内动乱与全国各地社区经常发生的事件没有什么不同，通过国家和地方当局的合作，这种动乱是能够得到控制的。”。
布雷耶早些时候拒绝了加州立即发布临时限制令的请求，而是将听证会定于周四下午在旧金山举行，并给了特朗普政府提出回应的时间。
在他们的回应中，司法部律师要求法官拒绝纽瑟姆提出的临时限制令的请求，该限制令将限制军队保护联邦建筑，认为这样的命令将相当于“暴徒对执行联邦法律的否决”。"
“原告要求的特别救济将在司法上取消总司令的军事指令——并将以临时限制令的姿态这样做。这将是史无前例的。这将是本质上的诅咒。而且会很危险，”他们写道。
他们还认为，加州不应该“事后批评总统关于联邦增援是必要的判断”，联邦法院应该尊重总统在军事问题上的自由裁量权。
特朗普周二为他派遣国民警卫队和海军陆战队的决定进行了辩护，称洛杉矶的局势“失控”。
“我只想要安全。我只是想要一个安全的地方，”他告诉记者。“在我们到达之前，洛杉矶一直被围困。警方无力处理。”
特朗普接着表示，他派出了国民警卫队和海军陆战队，向其他城市发出信息，不要干涉ICE的行动，否则他们将遭遇同等或更大的武力。
“如果我们不大力打击这一次，他们就会遍布全国，”他说。“但我可以告诉这个国家的其他人，当他们这样做的时候，如果他们这样做，他们将会遇到与我们在这里遇到的相等或更大的力量。”
Judge blocks Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's move to deploy California National Guard troops during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles, calling the move "illegal" and ordering the Trump administration to return the control of the California National Guard to the control of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The judge's order, which does not limitTrump's use of the Marines, does not take effect until Friday at noon. The Trump administration immediately filed a notice to appeal the order.
"At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in hisordergranting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. "His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."
Ina statement on social media, Newsom wrote, "The court just confirmed what we all know: The military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.
Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block what they called Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization" after Trump issued a memorandum over the weekend deploying more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the protests -- over objections from Newsom and other state and local officials.
In his order, the judge pointed to protesters' First Amendment rights and said, "just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," he wrote.
Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short" of the legal requirements of a "rebellion" to justify a federal deployment. Rebellions need to be armed, violent, organized, open, and aim to overturn a government, he wrote. The protests in California meet none of those conditions, he found.
"Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions," the judge wrote in his order.
"Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity," the judge wrote.
Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area followingprotests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary.
Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle.
To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions.
The judge did not decide whether the military's possible involvement in immigration enforcement -- by being present with ICE agents during raids -- violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from performing civilian law enforcement. The judge said he would hear additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week.
During a court hearing earlier Thursday, Breyer said during Thursday's 70-minute hearing that the main issue before him was whether the president complied with the Title 10 statute and that the National Guard was "properly federalized."
The federal government maintained that the president did comply while also arguing that the statute is not justiciable and the president has complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue an injunction that would "countermand the president's military judgments."
Meanwhile, the attorney on behalf of the state of California and Newsom said their position is that the National Guard was not lawfully federalized, and that the president deploying troops in the streets of a civilian city in response to perceived disobedience was an "expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power."
Bonta additionally argued in the emergency filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment.
"To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote.
Breyer had earlier declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response.
In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law."
"The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote.
They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters.
Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control."
"All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it."
Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force.
"If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here."
