Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who commanded Guard troops in Los Angeles, was testifying at a trial to determine whether the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act when it deployed the soldiers and U.S. Marines to Southern California this summer. The 1878 law generally prohibits a president from using the military to police domestic affairs.
Sherman said the deployment of federal agents on horseback and on foot to MacArthur Park in a neighborhood with a large immigrant population was initially planned for Father’s Day, June 15. But the operation was moved to July 7 after he raised concerns the park could be crowded, he said.
Yeah…so they moved the horseback trampling of civilians away from happening on Father’s Day, but what about he posse comitatus act violation in the headline?
It’s all I could find on the trial, but it might be in sources I don’t usually look at. The media seems to be kind of hiding it? I accidentally caught it.
Edit: You also might have missed the body of the post and it’s kind of far down where they talk about it. I put that in the headline because I thought it was important. Their headline was very vanilla to hide what was going on.
I found some more on this today.
Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman said military tapped to assist with domestic operations can protect federal property and federal agents in their mission carrying out federal operations. He said they could take certain law enforcement actions, such as setting up a security perimeter outside of federal facilities, if a commander on the ground felt unsafe.
During the ongoing Posse Comitatus Act trial, Major General Scott Sherman — a decorated officer with over three decades of military service — testified that a civilian official from the Trump administration questioned his loyalty to the United States after he raised legal objections to deploying military personnel in a domestic law enforcement capacity in Los Angeles."
Sherman, who currently serves as the deputy commanding general for the National Guard U.S. Army North (5th Army), reportedly told the court that he cited the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic policing without explicit congressional authorization."
His refusal to comply with the request, he testified, led to a tense exchange in which his patriotism was challenged.
The Department of Justice objected to the introduction of this testimony, arguing it was speculative and prejudicial. But Judge Marianne Keller overruled the objection, allowing the testimony to proceed — a decision likely to reverberate in the coming stages of the trial.
Eric Hamilton, the Deputy Assistant AG with the U.S. Department of Justice, argued that the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, and there are no civil remedies. He was met with a round of questioning from Judge Breyer, who repeatedly asked: “What is the remedy? Is there a remedy for the violation?”
Breyer gave a hypothetical question to Hamilton, if facts were not disputable: If Trump told troops to conduct law enforcement activities in LA., what’s the remedy?
The DOJ again said there’s no civil remedy. Breyer noted there’s presidential immunity from a criminal remedy, concluding it would be: “So it’s too bad, so sad it’s over. And that’s the end of the case, even though it’s violating allegedly other persons…what you’re saying is here is a statute that basically under under the present jurisprudence that we have today, there would be no remedy.”
Now, the DOJ argued the Posse Comitatus Act - which generally prohibits military from action as civilian law enforcement - does NOT apply to 10 USC 12406. Hamilton said, “The Act’s texts contemplates that it will coexist with other statutes and there will be exceptions.”
Breyer: “But (exceptions) are in context of an insurrection. Is it the federal government’s position, that an insurrection (in LA) was happening?” The DOJ said no but referred back to 9th Circuit ruling in this lawsuit finding Trump lawfully federalized the National Guard under 12406.
Breyer then presses on differences between insurrection and rebellion, since 12406 allows POTUS to federalize the Guard in case of rebellion against fed gov’t. Hamilton says Trump justified it as a rebellion, but notes that this trial is about Posse Comitatus Act alone.
Hamilton and the DOJ then argued California has no standing to sue. Roughly what he said as for each of California’s alleged injuries: 1) allegation they have standing because of physical/economic health of their citizens, no one testified to prove that 2) Guard escalated tensions and reignited protests but they didn’t trace that to PCA violation nor establish a record of that. A protest isn’t even an injury in the first place. It’s a 1A protected act. 3) fiscal harm, again doesn’t trace alleged fiscal harms to PCA violation nor did the court hear any of this. 4) federalism injury - service members are in SoCal to protect feds from violent acts that constitute federal crimes. There is no injury to California.
Thank you for doing the research. I don’t think you’ll mind, I’ll post the ABC one since it was so thorough.
Also, happy cake day.
Oh hey wow, cake!
Thanks for the ABC article.
