Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump\u2019s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court\u2019s order to be gone by noon Monday. <\/p>\n
Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June. <\/p>\n
About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show. <\/p>\n
<\/video> <\/p>\n\u201cThere were more than usual, and all of them left \u2014 there was not a single one that stayed,\u201d said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday. <\/p>\nTroops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.<\/p>\nThe development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing. <\/p>\nThe U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state\u2019s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. <\/p>\n\u201cFor the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,\u201d California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. \u201cWhile this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.\u201d <\/p>\nThe ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law. <\/p>\nThat precedent set a \u201cgreat level of deference\u201d as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding. <\/p>\nBut the so-called Newsom standard \u2014 California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit \u2014 has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.<\/p>\nIn October, the 7th Circuit \u2014 the appellate court that covers Illinois \u2014 found the president\u2019s claims had \u201cinsufficient evidence,\u201d upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.<\/p>\n\u201cEven applying great deference to the administration\u2019s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,\u201d the panel wrote. <\/p>\nThat ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court. <\/p>\nIn November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump\u2019s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year. <\/p>\nDespite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president\u2019s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment. <\/p>\nWhen Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could \u201cstay called up forever\u201d under the government\u2019s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes. <\/p>\n\u201cThere\u2019s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,\u201d Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.<\/p>\nFor now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon. <\/p>\nTimes staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump\u2019s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":449645,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[193395,1582,276,191042,206682,11397,98742,281,283,15428,2961,224,5337,24763,206683,1807,2290,8054,1810],"class_list":{"0":"post-449644","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-administration-official","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-california-atty","12":"tag-california-deployment","13":"tag-claim","14":"tag-command","15":"tag-court","16":"tag-decision","17":"tag-justice-department","18":"tag-la","19":"tag-los-angeles","20":"tag-losangeles","21":"tag-national-guard-troop","22":"tag-oregon-federalization","23":"tag-president-trump","24":"tag-review","25":"tag-sunday-morning","26":"tag-troop"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115726119959741205","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=449644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449644\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/449645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=449644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=449644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=449644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\u201cThere were more than usual, and all of them left \u2014 there was not a single one that stayed,\u201d said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday. <\/p>\n
Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.<\/p>\n
The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing. <\/p>\n
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state\u2019s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. <\/p>\n
\u201cFor the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,\u201d California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. \u201cWhile this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.\u201d <\/p>\n
The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law. <\/p>\n
That precedent set a \u201cgreat level of deference\u201d as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding. <\/p>\n
But the so-called Newsom standard \u2014 California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit \u2014 has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.<\/p>\n
In October, the 7th Circuit \u2014 the appellate court that covers Illinois \u2014 found the president\u2019s claims had \u201cinsufficient evidence,\u201d upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven applying great deference to the administration\u2019s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,\u201d the panel wrote. <\/p>\n
That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n
In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump\u2019s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year. <\/p>\n
Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president\u2019s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment. <\/p>\n
When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could \u201cstay called up forever\u201d under the government\u2019s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes. <\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,\u201d Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.<\/p>\n
For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon. <\/p>\n
Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump\u2019s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":449645,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[193395,1582,276,191042,206682,11397,98742,281,283,15428,2961,224,5337,24763,206683,1807,2290,8054,1810],"class_list":{"0":"post-449644","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-administration-official","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-california-atty","12":"tag-california-deployment","13":"tag-claim","14":"tag-command","15":"tag-court","16":"tag-decision","17":"tag-justice-department","18":"tag-la","19":"tag-los-angeles","20":"tag-losangeles","21":"tag-national-guard-troop","22":"tag-oregon-federalization","23":"tag-president-trump","24":"tag-review","25":"tag-sunday-morning","26":"tag-troop"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115726119959741205","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=449644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/449644\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/449645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=449644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=449644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=449644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}