Newsom v. Trump Trial (re: Federal Use of California National Guard in L.A.) in Front of Judge Breyer Will Be Zoomivised

Today's order:

The bench trial scheduled for August 11-13, 2025 will be accessible to members of the public via Zoom pursuant to Civil Local Rule 77-3. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2025) (Entered: 07/23/2025)

Comments

[F.D. Wolf]

The suspense is killing me. Who can possibly guess how the dumber Breyer brother will rule in this absurd case in which no actual legal claim exists? The only drama is whether the decision, which he has already made, will be stayed by the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. I guess this Zoom hearing indicates Breyer wants to do some grandstanding.

[ReaderY]

Why do you say no actual legal claim exists?

[F.D. Wolf]

Breyer ruled, in what I would characterize as the most ludicrous ruling by a district judge in my lifetime, that President Trump did not have the authority to federalize National Guard troops to deal with attacks on federal agents in Los Angeles. This ruling was immediately stayed by a panel of the Ninth Circuit. That should have been the end of it, but Breyer, wanting to keep flogging this dead horse, suggested to the parties that the posse comitatus issue might be "separate" and not covered by the stay.

He never had any jurisdiction in the first place to review the President's decision, and now he is (probably) going to issue another injunction that is functionally identical to his previous injunction that the Ninth Circuit already shot down.

[ReaderY]

I think Newsome was right on the merits. The statute in question only authorizes the President to call in troops when things are so out of hand there’s a martial-law type situation, and nothing was anywhere near close to that.

The situation with Eisenhower was totally different because it involved the 14th Amendment. The President can call in troops to enforce the 14th Amendment more readily than in other cases.

Hitler initiated Kristalnacht after a Jew assassinated a German diplomat. He too claimed that he was merely calling in troops to prevent attacks on government officials.

I’m not saying anything like that happened here. But Congress chose, and for good reason, not ro permit the President from calling in troops whenever a government official gets attacked or even merely impeded in an isolated incident. if the President could do that, then nothing prevents another Kristalnacht.

That said, I think the 9th Circuit judgment was correct because California botched its motion for an injunction.

[John F. Carr]

Northern District of California Local Rule 77-3:

(a) Generally allowed at judge’s discretion. To the extent not prohibited by statute, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Policy, or this Local Rule, judges of this Court may, in their discretion, provide the public with remote video or audio access to court proceedings. This applies to proceedings conducted in the courtroom as well as proceedings where the judge and/or the attorneys are appearing remotely.
...
(b) (2) Remote public access to jury trials is prohibited.
...
(d) No capture or transmission of remote access permitted. Persons with remote access to court proceedings are prohibited from recording, photographing, or retransmitting those proceedings.