A trial in California that challenges the legality of the deployment of US troops in Los Angeles by President Donald Trump highlighted the vulnerabilities of US laws and traditions that prevent the deployment of military to carry out police work in the country.
It is expected that the American district judge Charles Breyer, based in San Francisco, will issue in the coming weeks a judgment failure, after listening to three days of testimonies that ended Wednesday.
Gavin Newsom, democratic governor of the most populous state in the United States, sued Trump after the Republican President deployed National Guard and Marine Infants in active duty in Los Angeles in June, amid protests against the intensification of federal immigration raids.
Newsom described the deployment of troops by Trump as an illegal use of the armed forces and asked the judge to prohibit them from carrying out activities. One that dates from 1878, known as the POSSE Commitatus Law, and that it generally prohibits that the Armed Forces participate in the application of civil law in the United States.
The Department of Justice argued that the United States Constitution empowers a president to deploy troops nationwide to protect federal personnel and property, citing precedents of the Supreme Court.
California said that the troops deployed by Trump were overreach in police functions, such as making a “demonstration of strength” in a park of Los Angeles to deter protests and participate in a raid in a marijuana plantation about 160 km from the city.
The lawyers of the Department of Justice declared to the judge that Trump acted within their powers and that the troops are not fulfilling police functions. However, military figures testified that armed troops and combat vehicles accompanied immigration agents in raids, even when internal evaluations showed a low risk to staff, and twice arrested people for a short period.
California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, declared in a letter addressed to the judge that if Trump prevails in the case, “it would mark the beginning of a vast and unprecedented change in the role of the Armed Forces in our society.”
The White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, described the demand for California as a political maneuver and said, referring to the troops, that “any insinuation that they are performing police functions is false.”
Do not miss: California says that Trump sent military to ‘silence’ Los Angeles’s protests
Military deployment to ‘quell’ protests
When Trump ordered the shipment of 700 Marines and 4,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles, he said they were necessary to quell protests in the second most populous city in the United States. The lawyer of the Department of Justice, Eric Hamilton, declared before the judge that 300 National Guard members were still deployed.
“Why does the Federalized National Guard, despite having been reduced, is still standing?” Breyer asked.
The greatest general of the American army Scott Sherman, who served as commander of the military working group sent to Los Angeles, testified that military officers in the field have broad freedom to decide when the protection of the property and federal personnel is necessary, even in situations considered of low risk.
Sherman testified that he received instructions, although he did not specify who, of which actions such as establishing security perimeters, controlling traffic and crowds, and even stopping people, were permissible whenever the staff and federal property were threatened.
The judge pressed Hamilton to define the limits of the role of the Armed Forces. The police face threats daily, and the Trump administration argument would allow the use of the armed forces almost without restrictions, Breyer said.
Hamilton disagreed with the judge’s evaluation and said that most of the troops deployed were removed as the threats decreased.
The same day that the trial ended, Trump ordered 800 national guard who patrols Washington, DC, in response to what he described as an unbridled crime, although statistics show that violent crimes were decreasing. A president has more authority to use federal troops in the capital of the United States than in a state.
The Department of Justice also argued that California had no legal right to present the case, an issue that Breyer must resolve.
The POSSE Comitatus Law is a Federal Criminal Law, and the department argued that California cannot apply it through a civil lawsuit. The criminal process is the only way to do so, said the department, although Breyer questioned whether this would be possible given the legal immunity of the president for official acts carried out in the position by virtue of a ruling of the Supreme Court of 2024.
“It is the absence of limits to a national police force; that is what I am trying to decipher,” Breyer said.
With Reuters information
Do you use more Facebook? Let us like to be informed
