Fact Check: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Temporarily Blocks Judge's Order on National Guard Control
What We Know
On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on a federal judge’s order that required President Donald Trump to return control of California's National Guard troops back to the state. This decision came shortly after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump's deployment of the National Guard was illegal, violating both the Tenth Amendment and exceeding his statutory authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code (AP News, BBC). The appeals court indicated it would hold a hearing on the matter the following Tuesday (Washington Post).
Judge Breyer's ruling was significant as it stated that the deployment did not meet the legal definition of a "rebellion," which is one of the limited circumstances under which the president can federalize National Guard troops (PBS). The judge emphasized the importance of the First Amendment rights to protest, asserting that the protests in Los Angeles did not constitute a rebellion (NBC News).
Analysis
The appeals court's decision to block the lower court's ruling is a temporary measure, allowing the Trump administration to maintain control of the National Guard troops in Los Angeles while the case proceeds through the judicial system. This situation highlights the ongoing legal and constitutional debates regarding the deployment of National Guard troops, particularly in contexts involving civil unrest and immigration enforcement.
The sources reporting on this event are generally reliable, including major news outlets such as the Associated Press, BBC, and NBC News, which have a history of covering legal and political matters accurately. However, it is essential to note that the framing of the events can vary. For instance, while some reports emphasize the legality of Trump's actions, others focus on the implications for civil rights and state authority (Le Monde, Variety).
The legal arguments presented by both sides are complex. The Trump administration contends that the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard without state consent in certain situations, while California's government argues that such actions are unprecedented and legally unfounded. The historical context of National Guard deployment, particularly the rarity of federalizing troops without state approval, adds another layer to the analysis (BBC, Washington Post).
Conclusion
The claim that "the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday temporarily blocked a federal judge’s order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California" is True. The appeals court's ruling effectively pauses the enforcement of Judge Breyer's order, allowing the Trump administration to retain control of the National Guard troops while the legal proceedings continue. This situation underscores the ongoing tensions between federal authority and state rights, particularly in matters of military deployment and civil unrest.
Sources
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California. AP News
- Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National Guard in LA. BBC
- Trump can keep California National Guard deployed for now, appeals court says. Washington Post
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California. PBS
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California. YouTube
- Trump administration can keep control of California National Guard troops for now, appeals court rules. NBC News
- Federal judge rules Trump's deployment of National Guard in LA illegal, but appeals court halts decision. Le Monde
- Appeals Court Pauses Ruling Blocking National Guard Deployment. Variety
