The legality of the deployment by Trump of the National Guard in Los Angeles is argued before the Federal Court

Just hours after President Donald Trump said he National guard In Washington, DC, a federal judge of San Francisco heard the arguments on Monday as to whether the administration had violated the federal law when it mobilized the troops in Los Angeles this summer.

California asks the judge of the American district court Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return the control of the remaining troops to Governor Gavin Newsom and to stop using the army “to execute or help the execution of federal law”.

The federal government argues that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines was only to support immigration officials, who were hampered by large -scale demonstrations throughout the city in early June.

In response, the Ministry of Defense ordered some 4,000 members of the California National Guard and 700 Navies in Los Angeles while thousands of immigration activists and supporters walked in the streets and outside federal buildings to show their opposition to the Trump mass deportation effort.

Trump described demonstrators of violent crowds, but mayor Karen Bass and Newsom argued that local police were equipped to manage the demonstrations.

Trump said troops would protect staff and federal property and do not engage in law enforcement activities. According to the Pentagon, around 250 members of the National Guard remain in service in Los Angeles.

The State continued the Trump administration for what it called an unjustified deployment and won an early victory from Breyer, which found that the federal government had violated the tenth amendment to clarify the balance of powers between federal governments and states.

The Trump administration appealed the decision, arguing that the courts cannot guess the President’s orders. The United States Ministry of Justice obtained a temporary judgment The Breyer’s decision, which enabled the California National Guard to stay with Trump.

The trial was at the center of the 1878 trial posse Comitatus, which prohibited the president from using the army as domestic police. The case, which is expected to continue until Wednesday, could establish a precedent on how the Trump administration manages future deployments of federal troops at DC, Baltimore and other cities led by Democratic mayors.

“The factual question, which the court must address, is whether the army has been used to enforce national law, and if so, if it continues to be a threat which will be redone again,” said Breyer.

Three witnesses testified, starting with William Harrington, the former deputy chief of staff of the army working group supervising the Los Angeles operation.

Harrington, who has not participated or witness to the field work, said that he had raised concerns about the Comitatus law on June 7 during a working group briefing before the arrival of the federal forces in Los Angeles.

During the interrogation by the deputy prosecutor general of the State, Jane Reilley, Harrington said that he feared that if the California National Guard was deployed, it would lose the authority of application of the law because of the law and would be reduced to a support role.

This was the case when the federal forces accompanied immigration agents to separate operations from the MacArthur park in Los Angeles and a cannabis culture center in Camallo, north of Los Angeles, said Harrington.

“They were asked to provide protection against forces to agents while they fulfilled their federal functions,” he said under the counter-examination. “The soldiers were in fact engaged in any activity.”

Before Deployment at MacArthur Park On July 7, when the federal officers and the troops of the National Guard moved to the mainly empty space, Harrington received an intelligence report which “did not indicate a high-value target or a threat to federal functions at this place,” he said.

However, some 90 members of the guard were part of the forces seen crossing the popular park where the children with a day camp were playing.

“What I saw in the park today looked like a besieged city, under the armed occupation,” said Bass at the time.

Major-General of the Army Scott Sherman, commander of the Los Angeles working group, admitted to the court that the federal forces were more numerous than local police.

During an action for applying immigration to Mecca, a desert community at around 142 miles east of Los Angeles, around 300 soldiers from the working group were present, against 200 law enforcement agents, said Sherman.

Breyer seemed to be bristling several times, at some point, arguing with Sherman and the DOJ lawyers as to whether the federal forces can intervene whenever people protest against a law they do not like.

“What about tax law?” he asked Sherman.

“We have never had a situation like that, your honor,” said Sherman.

“I try to really understand what limits are established,” replied Breyer, replied.

Ernesto Santacruz Jr., director of the office on the field of the Los Angeles internal security department, said that the federal intervention was necessary because the local police were slow to react when a crowd Out of some 1,500 demonstrators gathered outside the federal building on June 6 to protest against immigration arrests.

The unruly crowd has made it difficult for its agents to do their work, in particular by entering the federal building where immigrants detained are detained, he said.

“We had to pivot, and we had to condense the teams roughly to have a greater imprint,” Santacruz told court. “It had an impact on our ability to carry out our missions.”

The DOJ lawyers asked Breyer a quick judgment at the end of the day, arguing that the state had not asserted its file. The trial resumes Tuesday morning.