In ordinary circumstances, federal troops would be deployed to help or help the efforts of the state, explains Jeremy R. Paul, law professor and former dean of Northeastern University School of Law.
The deployment by President Donald Trump of the federal national guard troops in California without request from the governor sets up a legal confrontation on the authority of the president for such a drastic maneuver, said Jeremy R. PaulProfessor of law and former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law.
“It’s a very complicated subject,” he says. “Most of the time, when the National Guard is nationalized – unless it is a situation in which a state refuses to enforce federal laws – the president generally expects and receives a request from the governor before entering and doing something like that.”
Following a series of demonstrations in response to a repression during immigration to Los Angeles, Trump ordered At least 2,000 national guards will be sent to California to protect agents from the application of immigration over the weekend. The White House cited recent demonstrations of immigration raids and customs application because of this decision.
“In recent days, violent crowds have attacked ice agents and federal law enforcement agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California,” the White House said in a statement. “These operations are essential to interrupt and reverse the invasion of illegal criminals in the United States.”
Some of the demonstrations became violent during the weekend, opposing demonstrators to law enforcement agents in clashes that have left the streets strewn with debris, vehicles burned and vandalized buildings. A 150 people were arrested on Friday, with more arrests that took place this weekend in places like San Francisco.
The scene recalls the last time that a president ordered the federalization of the national guards to repress the demonstrations, which took place in 1992 following the blows of Rodney King by police – also in Los Angeles.
President George HW Bush then used the 1807 insurrection law as a justification to send the national troops. Until now, Trump has not invoked the 19th century law, which, according to Paul, encompassed “a series of laws” designed to “call the militia” for the abolition of an insurrection, or to see that the laws are “duly executed”. It is a mechanism by which a president can deploy federal troops on American soil.
Trump invoked a separate law – Section 12406 of title 10 of the American code – who gives authorization to “repel (a) the invasion, to delete (a) the rebellion” or to execute the federal law, in the action.
In ordinary circumstances, Paul says that federal troops would be deployed to help or help the efforts of the state. California Governor Gavin Newsom qualified Trump’s deployment of the National Guard “illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. “”
On Monday, the state of California filed a complaint against the administration in response, preparing the way for a potential legal battle.
“These troops, according to the president, are supposed to help immigration and customs application to apply federal law which allows them to expel people who are not legally here,” explains Paul.
So, is Trump’s decision legal?
“If the president considers that the state does not execute the federal law, then he has the power to do so,” continues Paul. “But it is not because the president has this authority that it is the right thing to do.”
The mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, said that this decision felt like this was designed to wreak havoc in the city, and Newsom qualified the situation as “manufactured crisis” and “a violation of state sovereignty”.
While the National Guard, a military reserve force made up of soldiers from all American states and territories, serves A range of functions In the domestic sphere, civilian police are generally not part of it. THE Comitatus act possePromulgated in 1878, prohibited federal troops from “”Application of regular civil lawExcept in the circumstances approved by the congress.
The Posse Comitatus Act expressly applies to the army and the Air Force, while another law – Article 275 of title 10 of the American code – Covers the navy and the marine body.
Paul says that this decision “moves the balance of states control over the application of laws to federal application”, but in such a clear way.
“It is not because the National Guard is authorized to do whatever the traditional police could not do,” said Paul. “It is not martial law, as some might suggest. They cannot all of a sudden stop people or search houses without a mandate. They cannot simply ignore the Constitution.”