Connect with us

Politics

DOJ Withdraws Appeal, Hands Control of National Guard Back to California

Editorial

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reversed its stance regarding the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, agreeing to return control to Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision comes following a court ruling that ordered the troops to be reassigned to the state government, impacting the deployment that began more than six months ago.

In a brief filing submitted to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, government attorneys stated they no longer oppose lifting a partial administrative stay that had previously allowed federal control over the troops. This move effectively ends the DOJ’s attempt to maintain federal oversight while appealing the earlier decision, which had mandated the return of approximately 300 California National Guard soldiers.

Donald Trump had ordered the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles on June 7, 2020, following federal raids intended to combat illegal immigration. The initial deployment was prompted by violent protests against these raids. Trump asserted that local law enforcement was unable to ensure the safety of immigration officials and federal assets in the area. Over time, the number of troops stationed in the city was reduced.

The California state government challenged the deployment, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions. Following a federal judge’s ruling earlier this month, which required the president to relinquish control of the troops, the DOJ’s latest filing indicates a full withdrawal of their appeal.

In their supplemental brief, the DOJ stated that they do not “oppose lifting of the partial administrative stay and hereby respectfully withdraw their motion for a stay pending appeal.” This decision is seen as a significant shift, as it returns control of the troops to Governor Newsom, who has been vocal about the administration’s actions.

In a previous statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticized the Trump administration for holding the National Guard troops “hostage” for political reasons. He emphasized that the president does not have the unilateral power to federalize the National Guard without justification. “This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law,” Bonta asserted.

Although the National Guard was deployed, Los Angeles officials noted that their presence did not directly contribute to managing protests or civil disturbances. The responsibility for maintaining order was primarily handled by the Los Angeles Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. Critics have pointed out that the deployment was largely symbolic, with troops primarily stationed outside federal buildings to prevent unauthorized access.

Throughout the deployment, Trump defended the National Guard’s presence, claiming it was necessary to prevent potential riots that could threaten the city. He also made unsubstantiated claims that his actions were essential to safeguarding the 2028 Olympic Games and the 2026 World Cup from disruption.

As the situation evolves, the emphasis now shifts to the implications of returning control of the National Guard to state authorities and the ongoing discussions surrounding immigration enforcement and public safety.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.