Sam Harbourt, Harvard JD...Lambda Legal.
Nuff said
Posted on 06/17/2025 6:34:25 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A federal appeals court seemed likely Tuesday to allow President Donald Trump to keep National Guard troops on the ground in Los Angeles to protect immigration agents against protesters and reject, at least for now, California’s argument that the president is exceeding his authority.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not immediately rule on the Trump administration’s request to extend its order blocking enforcement of last week’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordering Trump to remove 4,000 National Guard members from Los Angeles streets. But the three-judge panel questioned arguments by a state lawyer that Trump had illegally taken control of the California National Guard and was required to consult with Gov. Gavin Newsom before doing so.
Does the Trump administration need to return control of the National Guard to California? That's the question currently making its way through the court system.
“Even if we were to agree with you that we have some ability to review the president’s actions,” Judge Mark Bennett asked Samuel Harbourt, California’s deputy solicitor general, “where (under federal law) is the president required to have judicial review that he considered lesser measures” before sending in the National Guard?
Harbourt replied that such actions were rare in U.S. history and pose “a grave threat to this country’s democratic tradition.”
But the skeptical questions by Bennett and Judge Eric Miller, both appointed by Trump, were joined by Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.
While there may have been “reasons why this decision (by Trump) should have been counseled against,” Sung said, “was there anything (in the law) saying he was not entitled to make these decisions?”
Yes, Harbourt argued, because federal laws “generally give the state control over militias,” such as the National Guard.
The panel noted that Breyer...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
Duh
This is the 9th circus. Don’t count on anything.
The 9th Circus remains the most overturned Circuit Court of Appeals, but this article gives hope that the frequently overturned acrobats have rehabilitated into a more stable equilibrium.
I’ll remain cautious, however, for at any moment one or more of them may take a deep dive into the penumbra of The Law where anything may be found, where the Red Queen says “off with their head” and the Doorknob says “feed your head”.
“Harbourt replied that such actions were rare in U.S. history and pose “a grave threat to this country’s democratic tradition.””
Once again you commie apparatchik, we are NOT a democracy! Whenever leftist jerks open up with this argument I immediately disregard them. How can I take them seriously when they don’t know we’re a Constitutional Republic.
CC
Sam Harbourt, Harvard JD...Lambda Legal.
Nuff said
Why is it even being questioned?. I know, I know. But still it is obvious he has the authority and duty to call them up.
“Yes, Harbourt argued, because federal laws “generally give the state control over militias,” such as the National Guard.”
How would you like to have that idiot for your attorney?
“generally” will be enough of a legal principle for the 9th Circuit to rule against Trump.
I’m sorry. Every time I see Lambda Legal I think NAMBLA Legal.
EC
What Trump has done in Federalizing California National Guard units against state wishes is no different to what Eisenhower did with the Arkansas National Guard in 1957 or what Kennedy did with the Mississippi National Guard in 1962. Using state militia to enforce Federal laws dates back to Washington using the Pennsylvania and other state militias to enforce whiskey taxes.
Heh
No difference of course!
Apparently the screeching Left missed those classes or maybe it isn’t taught anymore
Of course a lot of us remember it as it happened. Funny how the State governors didn’t sue either Eisenhower or Kennedy...
If you were Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, or George Wallace in that era, you would have realized that even if they won a victory at the district court level from a pro-segregation Democrat appointed by Roosevelt and Truman, the Warren Supreme Court that issued the desegregation decisions would have supported the actions of the mid-century Presidents. The liberal governors are making a gamble that the Roberts Court will restrain the Trump Administration, if not on the use of the National Guard than on issues like illegal immigration and electoral reforms in the blue states.
Likely all true.
But back then, in the era of Presidents like FDR and Eisenhower, there was virtually no question that the President had that kind of Constitutional power. Chiseling away at it with what amounts to nuisance suits was not tolerated, and the Warren court could only contort themselves so far.
My father was a government attorney of that era and expended large amounts of overheated air blasting “That damn Warren court...”!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.