Tag Archives: Judge Charles Breyer

Raleigh News & Observer: Judge Invokes ‘King George’ in Blow to Trump

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge has questioned President Donald Trump’s legal grounds for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit. California won the lawsuit, but an appeals court blocked the removal of troops. The judge expressed skepticism of Trump’s claim that unrest in the city justified the federalization. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer noted key legal issues surrounding the deployment.

…

Prior to the appeals court temporary block, Breyer said, “That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George. It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.”

…

Newsom wrote, “The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.”

Judge Invokes ‘King George’ in Blow to Trump
More for You

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-invokes-king-george-in-blow-to-trump/ss-AA1H2YIV

Law & Crime: ‘Different in kind’: 4-star generals, admirals serving from JFK to Obama say Los Angeles ICE protests don’t warrant deployment of National Guard to California

Posted on by
Reply

4-star admirals, generals serving from JFK to Obama warn Trump’s deployment of National Guard poses ‘potentially grave risk’

Ahead of a Zoom hearing scheduled for Tuesday at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals who served under presidents ranging from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama filed court documents warning that President Donald Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of U.S. Marines poses “potentially grave risk of irreparable harm.”

Seeking the appellate court’s leave to file a brief and enter the case as amici curiae — Latin for “friends of the court” — the retired generals, admirals, and former U.S. Army and Navy secretaries did not explicitly take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s side in the case. They did suggest Sunday, however, that the Trump administration’s bid for an emergency stay of a lower-court ruling and continued push to quell “violent riots” in Los Angeles amid nationwide “No Kings” protests over ICE raids may not pass legal muster when compared to historical precedents.

…

Again, although the retired admirals and generals did not support either party to the case, they implicitly warmed to Breyer’s ruling that the definition of “rebellion” has not been met and that, in the proposed amici’s words, the “recent and ongoing situation” in Los Angeles “appears to be different in kind” from the “extreme circumstances” of the 1992 Rodney King riots and the times when state governors “openly” and defiantly stood against the end of racial segregation during the Civil Rights era.

…

The brief concluded that Trump’s injection of the military into “domestic political controversies” — “undermining its ability to achieve its core mission of protecting the nation” — is a case in point as to why troops “should be kept out of domestic law enforcement whenever possible.”

Retired four-star generals sound alarm at 9th Circuit on Trump’s National Guard deployment
Retired four-star generals and admirals warn that Trump’s federalization of the National Guard and deployment of U.S. Marines poses “potentially grave risk.”
‘Different in kind’: 4-star generals, admirals serving from JFK to Obama say Los Angeles ICE protests don’t warrant deployment of National Guard to California

Deadline: Trump Regains Control Of Troops In L.A. From Newsom Thanks To Appeals Court; Governor Was To Take Command Of National Guard On Friday – Updated

Posted on by
Reply

Gavin Newsom’s renewed control of the California National Guard didn’t last more than a few hours thanks to a federal appeals court.

“The request for an administrative stay is GRANTED,” the court wrote in a short order tonight after the White House and DOJ came up short this afternoon in their bid to maintain a hold on the unrequested and widely seen as unnecassary troop deployment. “The district court’s June 12 temporary restraining order is temporarily stayed pending further order,” a three-judge panel of two Trump appointees and one Joe Biden appointee said.

All of which has put the brakes on returning control of the Guard that Trump federalized on June 7 to Gov. Newsom at noon on June 13. It gives Trump at least one more hot weekend to inflame the situation on the ground in L.A. with more immigration enforcement raids. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals trio has now set a June 17 Zoom hearing on the matter.

Newsom Beats Trump As Court Curtails POTUS’ “Illegal” Use Of Troops In L.A.
POTUS just took a hit in his battle with the Governor of California for the streets of LA & troops being there

https://deadline.com/2025/06/trump-court-ruling-troops-la-newsom-1236432420

Politico: Hegseth won’t commit to obeying courts on Marines in Los Angeles

Posted on by
Reply

The Defense secretary said he’d comply with a Supreme Court order blocking Trump’s domestic deployment, but did not commit to the other courts.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that he would obey a Supreme Court order to remove troops from Los Angeles but declined to show similar deference to other courts considering the issue.

The Pentagon chief initially deflected when asked at a House Armed Services Committee hearing whether he would abide by a court’s decision if it determined President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines was unlawful.

“What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” Hegseth said.

But the Defense secretary later clarified that he would obey a decision from the high court.

“We’re not here to defy a Supreme Court ruling,” he said.

The comments mirror other officials who have criticized court rulings that go against the Trump administration, often directing withering criticism at lower-court judges while vowing deference to the justices.

The troops and their commanders might need a reminder that their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the ego of a drunk O-3 wife-beater. Soldiers can be prosecuted for following illegal orders, i.e. being ordered to ignore a legitimate decision of a circuit or appellate court. Any arrests and charges by the troops under such circumstances should be null & void.

Hegseth won’t commit to obeying courts on Marines in Los Angeles
The Defense secretary said he’d comply with a Supreme Court order blocking Trump’s domestic deployment, but did not commit to the other courts.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/hegseth-marines-los-angeles-00402794

Newsom Beats Trump As Court Curtails POTUS’ “Illegal” Use Of Troops In L.A.

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump has just been ordered by a federal judge to “return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

In an order handed down Thursday just a couple of hours after a pitched hearing in San Francisco between Department of Justice lawyers and Golden State attorneys, Judge Charles Breyer awarded Gavin Newsom the temporary restraining order he sought over Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard on June 7 after protests over ICE raids of undocumented immigrants in and around L.A.

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,” the judge wrote in a 36-page order this evening. “He did not.” The Bill Clinton appointed judge added: “His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Newsom and the state Attorney General first filed suit against Trump, Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth and others in the administration on June 9. The gist of their argument was that the president overstepped his authority when he dispatched National Guard troops to the region to respond to protests of ICE immigration raids late last week. The governor said the president violated the law by not consulting with him first before the deployment.

On June 11, Newsom upped the ante and demanded a TRO to halt the troop movement and Trump’s brazen authoritarian tactics ASAP

Having already warned on “a monarchy” in the hearing earlier today, Breyer worried that “Defendants’ actions also threaten to chill legitimate First Amendment expression.” To that, and with the overriding Constitutional and jurisdictional issues at play, he laid out exactly what’s next for Newsom and Trump with this halting of military deployment to America’s second-largest city:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order:
Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.

Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. 
The Court further STAYS this order until noon on June 13, 2025.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.

Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue. A hearing on this order to show cause will be held on June 20, 2025 at 10 a.m. Plaintiffs’ moving papers shall be filed no later than June 16, 2025; Defendants’ opposition shall be due no later than June 18, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ reply shall be due on June 19, 2025.

Whether or not this White House complies with Breyer’s order is another matter.

Newsom Beats Trump As Court Curtails POTUS’ “Illegal” Use Of Troops In L.A.
POTUS just took a hit in his battle with the Governor of California for the streets of LA & troops being there

https://deadline.com/2025/06/trump-court-ruling-troops-la-newsom-1236432420