A newsletter by Reuters and Westlaw |
|
|
Good morning. A federal judge will consider California's request for a temporary restraining order limiting the law enforcement activities of the troops Trump has deployed in Los Angeles. Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce opinions this morning, and three governors will testify before the House Oversight Committee on their policies regarding undocumented migrants. And with that, it’s Thursday. Let’s dive in.
|
|
|
California asks judge to limit U.S. military's law enforcement activities in LA |
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is set to hear arguments today in California’s lawsuit over the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to suppress protests and civil unrest. He’s expected to decide whether or not to issue a temporary order that would restrain U.S. troops’ participation in law enforcement activities. Here’s what to know:
|
|
|
-
President Trump has ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom, sparking a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflaming political tensions in a city now in its seventh day of protests over Trump's immigration raids.
- California sued Trump and the Defense Department on Monday, seeking to block the deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids. Read the complaint here.
- On Tuesday, California sought an immediate ruling on just the narrow issue of the troops’ participation in police enforcement. Read that motion here. Breyer set a hearing on the matter for 1:30 p.m. PT today.
-
The federal law cited by Trump for his deployment, Section 12406 of Title 10, only kicks in when the U.S. is under threat from an invasion, rebellion or similar crisis, and it requires the president to get the governor’s cooperation before calling in the National Guard, according to the lawsuit. None of the legal conditions was met, since the protests were not a “rebellion” and Trump did not consult with Newsom before ordering troops into LA, according to the lawsuit.
- The Trump administration has disputed both of those arguments in a Wednesday court filing, saying that the president has discretion to determine whether a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" requires a military response and that neither the courts nor a state governor can second-guess that determination. Read that document here.
- Learn more about the legal issues here.
|
-
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in pending, argued cases at 10 a.m. ET.
-
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in D.C. will hold a status conference in a case brought by the advocacy group, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, challenging the Trump administration’s sudden closure of three oversight offices within the Department of Homeland Security.
-
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker testify before the House Oversight Committee on their policies regarding undocumented migrants.
-
Aleksei Andriunin, the founder and CEO of cryptocurrency "market maker" Gotbit, is slated for sentencing after pleading guilty to U.S. charges that he participated in a wide-ranging scheme to manipulate the market for digital tokens on behalf of client companies.
-
A federal judge will consider whether to grant bail to a Russian-born scientist detained by U.S. immigration authorities in February after arriving at an airport with frog embryos in her luggage. Prosecutors charged Kseniia Petrova with smuggling, after a federal judge in Vermont took up her lawsuit alleging that immigration authorities have unlawfully detained her.
|
Court calendars are subject to last-minute docket changes. |
|
|
"The changes the Justice Department is apparently imposing will likely result in less transparency in the process of confirming nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and appear to be based on incorrect information."
|
—ABA President William Bay, writing in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi about how the ABA was "surprised and disappointed" by the Department of Justice's recent decision to restrict the ABA’s access to judicial nominees and information about them for the first time in seven decades. Read more.
|
|
|
|
