Newsweek - A senior federal judge has issued an unusual warning about the dangers of normalizing presidential use of military forces in U.S. cities, breaking with colleagues on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Newsom v. Trump, a dispute over President Donald Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard.
Legal experts say the ruling has far-reaching implications for presidential power, judicial oversight, and the historic boundary separating civilian law enforcement from military authority in the United States. MORE
The dispute over Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard has become a major test of presidential authority and judicial oversight.
At issue is whether a president can send troops into American cities without meeting strict legal conditions set by Congress—and whether courts will enforce those limits. In sharply worded dissents, two Ninth Circuit judges warned that normalizing military involvement in domestic law enforcement could erode the separation of powers and the nation’s long-standing resistance to using armed forces against its own citizens...
In a statement accompanying the denial, Judge Marsha S. Berzon, joined by Chief Judge Mary Murguia and nine other judges, said the decision not to rehear the case “presents an issue of the gravest consequence: the peacetime deployment of military troops in American cities.”
She warned that the panel’s approach risked granting the president “extraordinary, unilateral powers” inconsistent with constitutional and statutory limits.
No comments:
Post a Comment