\n<\/p>\n
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initially federalized 4000 National Guard troops and more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles in early June.<\/p>\n
\u201cViolent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property,\u201d Trump said in a June 7 memo. \u201cTo the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion.\u201d<\/p>\n
The necessity of that deployment has been the center of a see-sawing legal battle between California and the Trump administration, and has become the model for mobilizations throughout the country.<\/p>\n
In October, the Trump administration redeployed 214 California National Guard troops to Portland, an action ultimately prevented by a federal judge in Oregon<\/a>. Those guards remained outside the city at a base until November, when the president released them from their mission. At this time, the troops are in the process of demobilizing at Fort Hood, Texas, according to a spokesperson for Northern Command, but are still under the federal government\u2019s command.<\/p>\n The 100 troops in Los Angeles \u201cremain staged at various locations\u201d according to the US government\u2019s court filings<\/a>, \u201cto provide rapid response protection support to federal facilities, functions, and personnel.\u201d<\/p>\n The state\u2019s argument also drew attention to an Aug. 25 presidential order<\/a> instructing \u201cthe Secretary of Defense [to] ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.\u201d<\/p>\n As the administration\u2019s justification for the initial mobilization in Los Angeles remained the subject of fierce national debate over the limits of presidential power, California argued that the continued federalization of the 100 troops could no longer be rationalized by any measure.<\/p>\n \u201cThe lack of any violence or other justifying events in Los Angeles and Defendants\u2019 choice to remove most of those troops from Los Angeles confirms it,\u201d Bonta asserted in court filings<\/a> urging the court to \u201cenjoin any continued federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles, and end this unlawful federalization now.\u201d<\/p>\n California has also argued that the Trump administration\u2019s federalization of the state\u2019s national guard has become a blueprint in a war against blue states and cities.<\/p>\n \u201cDefendants began to implement in other parts of the country the model of military occupation that began in Los Angeles,\u201d attorneys wrote in court filings.<\/p>\n It remained unclear, however, what effect a ruling on California\u2019s renewed motion would have, given other cases challenging the federalization of state\u2019s national guard moving through the courts. That includes Trump v. Illinois, which is on the emergency docket before the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n After the hearing, Bonta said that all of the cases currently moving through the courts focus on the same component of the law \u200athat allows the president to deploy the National Guard if there\u2019s an inability to execute the federal law with the regular forces.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd that\u2019s what the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at, at least the aspect of what are regular forces and how you\u2019re supposed to analyze that issue,\u201d Bonta said.<\/p>\n