Amid the ongoing turmoil and major fallout from Los Angeles, one thing has certainly been consistent: complete inconsistency, for the most part, across most contexts.
Certainly, this inconsistency is evident across the local and judicial contexts, that’s for sure – as the federal government seems rather consistent in its deployment of federalized law enforcement troops, regardless of what California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass do or do not do.
Perhaps one of the more amusing examples of such inconsistencies has emerged when a Clinton-backed and Biden-backed judge go against one another in the ongoing furor over the presence of the military in Los Angeles.
And that apparently conflict of judicial interests just reached a head with regards to the emergency deployment of federal law enforcement in California.
Newsom promptly sued the Trump administration upon their arrival, arguing that the present of such troops gravely undermined “state sovereignty,” amid other concerns.
“I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles [C]ounty and return them to my command. We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they’re actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California,” Newsom asserted on X, shortly before daring Trump to arrest him while simultaneously launching his lawsuit.
The lower courts responded quickly to Newsom’s request, with a Clinton-backed judge – U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer – promptly quashing Trump’s efforts to deploy federal law enforcement in Los Angeles.
However, a ruling was handed down from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mere hours after that raised multiple eyebrows, as detailed by The Hill.
In a rather crisp order, the three-judge panel made it abundantly clear that the Trump administration is apparently cleared to go full steam ahead with its deployment of Marines and other military entities.
“The court has received the government’s emergency motion for stay pending
appeal. Dkt. No. 5. The request for an administrative stay is GRANTED. The
district court’s June 12, 2025 temporary restraining order is temporarily stayed
pending further order,” the order tersely noted.
In other words, the troops stay.
Quite the turnabout in just a few hours’ time!
What made this ruling especially intriguing was the fact that one of the judges on the three-judge panel – Judge Jennifer Sung – was a Biden appointee.
The other two judges – Judge Mark Bennett and Judge Eric Miller – were appointees of Trump.
One thing is sadly clear: At this point in time, the United States is ostensibly more “divided” than ever.
Including over whether or not Trump is acting appropriately in terms of his deployment of various troops, as reported in varied media outlets – liberal and conservative alike.
“The U.S. public is split over President Trump’s decision to deploy thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to help quell protests over his robust immigration agenda that have spread across the country, according to a recent survey …The Reuters/Ipsos poll … found that nearly half of Americans surveyed – 48 percent – said they agree that the president should ‘deploy the military to bring order to the streets’ when the demonstrations become violent. Another 41 percent of respondents did not agree with the statement,” The Hill reported in a separate article.
The same article also noted that approximately half of respondents believed that Trump had gone “overboard” with the arrests of migrants, whereas 40 percent of respondents strongly approve of the administration’s approach.
In other words, the nation remains deeply politically divided, with virtually no hope of any ideological – or even legislative – ceasefire.
Author: Jane Jones
