The rules of the Court of Appeal Trump had a defendable logic to seize the national guard troops of California

The decision, Trump’s California Gov. When Gavin activates the troops against the opposition of Newsom, a sub -court judge stops a decision of a sub -court judge who found that Trump was illegal.

The distribution has been the first by the president of a state national guard without the permission of the governor since 1965.

In your decision, Three referee panel 9. In the US Circuit Appeal Court unanimously concluded that Trump legally exercised his authority in the federalization of the guards.

Although the presidents did not have the authority to seize the control of a state’s guards, the Trump administration offered enough evidence to show that the protesters have a defendable reason to do so by referring to the violence actions.

“Unquestionable facts show that before the deployment of the national guards, they showed a few federal officers’ ‘and civil servants’ and’ concrete pieces, liquid bottles and other objects’. Protesters also damaged the federal buildings and caused at least one federal building to be closed. The court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing such events is important.”

Furthermore, even if the Federal government did not inform the governor of California before the Federalizing the governor of California, the Governor of California did not inform the governor of California, that Newsom had no authority to veto the president of the President.

Trump celebrated the decision on the real social platform and called it a “big gain ..

“If our cities and our people need to be protected all over the United States, we are the ones who will give them and the local police, the lack of work.”

Newsom made a statement that the court disappointed that Trump allowed the guards to control the guards. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision.

“The Court rightly rejected the claim that Trump could do everything he wants with the national guards and that he did not have to explain himself to a court,” Newsom rightly rejected. “The president is not a king and not above the law.

The court case may have wider effects on the power of placement of soldiers in the United States after Trump has directed immigration officials to deportation from other democratic enterprises to deportation.

Republican Trump argued that troops were necessary to restore the order. Newsom, a democrat, said that the movement inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. There are protests Since it appeared to collapse.

Two judges in the appeal panel were appointed by Trump in the first period. During Oral Arguments TuesdayAll three judges argued that the presidents had a wide latitude in accordance with the federal law and that the courts should be reluctant to take steps.

The case began when Newsom filed a lawsuit to prevent Trump’s command, and an early victory from the US regional judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

Breyer said that Trump has exceeded his legal authority and only the presidents could seize control during the periods of “rebellion or a rebellion danger”.

Breyer, the brother of former President Bill Clinton and his brother’s brother Stephen Breyer, the retired Supreme Court of Justice, wrote, “protests in Los Angeles are very inadequate than the rebellion ‘.

However, the Trump administration cannot predict the decisions of the President of the President and one. temporary stopping From the Court of Appeal.

The decision means that the control of the California national guards will remain in federal hands as the case continues to emerge.