A judge has granted a temporary restraining order against Trumps military crackdown on LA protesters.
There is little question that fundamental freedoms – especially freedom of expression – is under attack in the US. Following Donald Trumps invasion of California where ICE agents conducted raids at businesses like a Home Depot to kidnap and arrest anyone for not looking white – this with the intent of feeding the federal governments human trafficking scheme by shipping those people to foreign gulags as they get put into slave camps – American’s protested these moves knowing full well that this was an entirely unAmerican thing to do. So, in response, American’s took to the streets to protest these illegal actions.
The protests were largely peaceful with very few instances of violence. Nevertheless, Trump seized the opportunity to try and dial up the temperature by sending in the National Guard to help crack down on those protests. The end goal, of course, is to try and manufacture a crisis so that Trump could ultimately declare martial law and suspend the constitution in his bid to finally end democracy in America and declare himself dictator for life. In fact, the Trump administration went so far as to threaten everyone with arrest. California governor, Gavin Newsom, responded by actively daring Trump to arrest him.
What followed was Trump sending more military personnel to his military crackdown on American citizens in Los Angeles (LA). This came in the form of an additional 2,000 National Guard members as well as an additional 700 marines – many of whom arrived at the scene only to find that they were sleeping on concrete floors and begging establishments to use their washrooms. In the process, the Trump regime forcibly arrested Democrat senator, Alex Padilla, for daring to ask a question while carrying out his duties as a senator. This included being tackled to the ground and put in handcuffs before being forcibly removed from the news conference being held.
During that same press conference, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, said that the military will not be leaving until democratically elected lawmakers in the state are forcibly removed. This, according to her, in a bid to “liberate” the state from lawmakers who were democratically elected by the people. No doubt, this implies that the intent is to install their own fascist regime against the will of the people to further crack down on anyone daring to question the Trump regime.
This, very understandably, didn’t deter American’s from pushing back against this attempt to take over their state. In fact, the “No Kings” protest further expanded with protests being planned for not just other states across the country, but also multiple countries around the world.
Of course, worth pointing out is the fact that there has been a legal challenge lodged against this military takeover of LA. Newsom did file a legal challenge against the military deployment, asking that the military be under his direction, not Trump’s direction. This in a bid to try and deescalate the situation. Trump lawyers, of course, were not happy that their attempt to try and raise the temperature might be falling apart. So, they argued that the line dancing happening on the streets of LA constitutes a “rebellion”, meaning that they have every right to conduct this military coup.
A judge overseeing the case, however, appears to be siding with democracy, pointing out that a few minor instances of violence does not give rise to the level of a “rebellion”. From TechDirt:
When a federal judge grants a temporary restraining order within hours of a hearing and writes 36 pages explaining why the President of the United States is acting illegally and unconstitutionally, you know something significant just happened. Federal Judge Charles Breyer did exactly that last night, blocking Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles and exposing the administration’s manufactured crisis for what it is: an illegal attempt to crush dissent under the guise of emergency powers.
Of course, just hours later, the Ninth Circuit put a stay on the ruling so it can consider the government’s appeal early next week. But Breyer’s ruling is important and thorough, so let’s cover what he ruled before talking about the Ninth Circuit.
The judge doesn’t shy away from the fact that there was some violent activity by protesters — in fact, he describes multiple examples of it — but notes that this is far from enough to justify the deployment under both the law and the Constitution.
The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” Defendants refer repeatedly to “violent rioters,” and “mobs,” see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully. Nonetheless, it is also beyond debate that some individuals used the protests as an excuse for violence and destruction. Some bad actors on June 6 threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects at … officers,” Santacruz Decl. ¶ 11, and used “chairs, dumpsters, and other items as weapons,” id. ¶ 14. Others threw rocks and other objects, including a Molotov cocktail, on June 7. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 9. A “violent crowd” boxed in officers, threw fireworks, rocks, and mangos, and trapped one officer in her car, surrounding it, shaking it, and throwing stones at it. Santacruz Decl. Ex. 20. Some people on June 8 set off fireworks toward officers and threw objects at their vehicles. Santacruz Decl. ¶ 26. Someone on June 9 fired paintballs, id. ¶ 28, and a crowd injured five LAPD officers, id. ¶ 31.
Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient. Even accepting the questionable premise that people armed with fireworks, rocks, mangoes, concrete, chairs, or bottles of liquid are “armed” in a 1903 sense—the Court is aware of no evidence in the record of actual firearms—there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed. Certainly, the peaceful protesters were “organized” to some degree, in that people knew generally knew where to go to participate in protests, see, e.g., Espíritu Decl. Ex. F (“Dozens of protesters gathered Friday evening outside a federal detention center in Los Angeles where lawyers said those arrested had been taken, chanting ‘set them free, let them stay!’”), but there is no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence.8 Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids.
While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole. The definition of rebellion is unmet.
This, unsurprisingly, did not sit well with far right extremists. They were finally seeing a path forward to turning America into a far right fascist dictatorship and this ruling puts a major wrinkle into that plan. Obviously, the legal fight over whether or not American’s have the right to protest against the fascist regime, but at least this initial ruling represents a legal win for the American’s.
