FEDERAL AUTHORITY VIOLENTLY CHALLENGED IN LOS ANGELES—WHEN POLITICS AND THE LAW COLLIDE
INTRODUCTION
This weekend saw the truth of what propelled Trump to victory. The Mexican flag flown by violent protestors (mingled with “peaceful ones”) who attacked and injured state and federal law enforcement officers while displaying the American flag upside down is a call to action. These are pure insurrectionists who have no business in this country. Criminals burning vehicles and hurling the suddenly fashionable Molotov cocktails with the sole purpose of obstructing the lawful and proper performance of federal immigration enforcement. Including injuring and killing them. State and federal officers were attacked with rocks and other objects in addition to fire. Mayor Bass, who continues to wear her “I am a Black woman, and therefore I am untouchable” armor, condemns lawful authority and tacitly encourages these acts while vilifying federal agents faithfully executing laws Congress has had in place for decades. This modern version of Nero, who was in Ghana while Los Angeles burned, is firmly on the side of lawlessness. Governor Newsom doubles down, condemning Trump’s Proclamation of June 7th mobilizing National Guard troops in the face of his own gubernatorial incompetence. It is time to understand who is right and who is wrong, and we all know who that is.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUES A CRITICAL PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHING THE SUPREMACY OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN AN ACT OF INTOLERANCE OF THE VIOLENCE
In response to the anarchy that played out on the streets of Los Angeles, Trump issued a Proclamation on Saturday, June 7th, which can be viewed here in its totality. It states in relevant part:
“In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel, and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.”
10 U.S.C. Section 12406 states:
“Whenever—
- (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
- (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
- (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”
It is undisputed that federal immigration officers may seize aliens based on an administrative warrant attesting to probable cause of removability. This is not a judicial warrant, and the calls for the use of these by the progressive ill-informed are legally baseless. An ICE detainer and an administrative warrant allow for seizures under varying circumstances, and courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the United States Supreme Court, have held that this process evidences probable cause of removability in every instance. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960); City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018). The actions of ICE officials on the ground have been lawful, and when their enforcement actions are violently interdicted by lawless miscreants, the protection of federal actions and property is imperative. Here is where politics comes into play. Mayor Bass, who is not qualified to run a lemonade stand, sees the political benefit in siding with the protestors, notwithstanding her hollow “condemnation” of violence. These anarchists who fly a foreign flag on American soil while attacking federal officers are the proxies of Democrats who see anything anti-Trump as a political plus. Slow walking responses to such violence as we saw with Black Lives Matter in Minneapolis, Baltimore, Ferguson, and countless other venues is right out of the Progressive playbook. Intelligence units of the Los Angeles law enforcement apparatus clearly saw this coming but claim that the delay in a strong response was necessary. A deterrent presence was not pre-deployed, and explanations will not be forthcoming unless a federal grand jury gets answers. On June 8th, federalized National Guard troops from varying jurisdictions under the supervision of the Secretary of Defense arrived in Los Angeles. They will be a deterrent force to protect the federal ICE facility and the federal personnel engaged in lawful functions, as well as the ingress and egress to those venues. Border Patrol BORTAC operators should escort ICE agents in the field. FAFO. These riots are politically fueled and encouraged by political cowards who see a benefit in siding with the lawless aliens who do not see any allegiance to this country and the real rule of law in a federalist system.
WHAT OF POSSE COMITATUS?
The President has inherent authority outside of the invocation of the Insurrection Act or the law used in the June 7th Proclamation to deploy troops to protect federal functions and property. A 1971 Opinion of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel stated:
“The question involves the relationship between the inherent authority of the President to use troops to protect federal functions and the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, which prohibits the use of troops for law enforcement purposes “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” It is the opinion of this Office that the Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the use of troops to protect the functioning of the government by assuring the availability of federal employees to carry out their assigned duties and that troops may therefore be utilized to prevent traffic obstructions designed to prevent the access of employees to their agencies. In a series of memoranda, this Office has taken the position that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to the use of troops to perform essentially law enforcement duties and does not impair the President’s inherent authority to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions.”
That Opinion was generated as the result of a declared “Mayday Movement” with the then-stated goal of physically preventing federal workers from reporting to work. This exception to the prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act also explains the purposes of that Act and how this is different. The Opinion supported this with history and analysis:
“These conclusions are based on the history of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was originally enacted in 1878 for the purpose of preventing United States Marshals, on their own initiative, from calling upon troops to assist them in performing their duties. See 7 Cong. Rec. 3718, 3727, 3845–49, 4240–47 (1878). That Act was designed to prevent the use of troops in direct law enforcement under the command of minor civilian officials and does not reach essentially protective duties. The conclusions are likewise supported by the historic and judicial recognition of the President’s inherent powers to use troops to protect federal property and functions as a necessary adjunct of his constitutional duties under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers (1787–1957) 130–39 (4th ed. 1957). The Supreme Court has recognized this authority. Although In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), involved the use of a marshal to protect a federal officer, the Court indicated that troops might have been used when necessary. Citing the example of obstruction to the mails, it noted that troops could be used to prevent such obstruction to a vital federal function pursuant to the inherent authority of the President. When the mails were obstructed during a railway strike, President Cleveland ordered out the troops for the purpose of protecting federal property and removing obstructions to the United States mails. The Court upheld this action: The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the Nation, and all its militia are at the service of the Nation to compel obedience to its laws. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 582 (1895)”
Here the President has used both his inherent Article II authority to ensure that the immigration laws are faithfully executed as well as 10 U.S.C. Section 12406, which also applies in this instance. The Chief Executive has proclaimed that there is a rebellion that seeks to prevent federal law enforcement from engaging in lawfully permitted activities on our soil. It is based on threat assessments and gathered intelligence. I project that a court cannot look beyond this political question. This was a violent rebellion with the flying of the Mexican flag and fiery attacks on lawful authority as Exhibit “A.” Two sovereigns operate within the jurisdiction of the United States, and so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions are not islands immune from the ingress of federal law enforcement activity. Those arrested will soon find this out. There is no double jeopardy in the prosecution of similar crimes in both state and federal court. Assaults on federal officers and other mayhem-based offenses may involve violations of both California and federal law. EACH AND EVERY Mexican flag-waving insurrectionist and any others should be prosecuted in both state and federal courts with the possibility of consecutive sentences. The violence captured on digital media, coupled with the baseless and ignorant chants that ICE is a “terrorist organization,” has no place in a system of ordered liberty. Politics has prevented Newsom, who sees a Presidential run on a pro-immigration platform, and a feckless Mayor who seeks to deflect from her extreme incompetence, from fully and decisively protecting federal officials simply enforcing federal law. The Administration has used the law and the Constitution to fill this void. It will repeat itself as the anarchy continues. These criminals must go. Immigration law will be enforced. Peaceful protests will, of course, continue as protected speech. These can be declared unlawful if they exceed permissible scope and execution.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU and the elite will immediately challenge this deployment as not authorized by the cited law or the Constitution. I suspect the city of Los Angeles and the State of California will find a District Court willing to declare the deployment unlawful to further their political agenda. They will lose. The optics of this disgusting conduct has resonated across this country. Law-abiding Americans who voted for the deportation of illegals, especially criminal aliens, support this show of strength by the Trump Administration. Finally, the Mexican flag and the flouting of federal authority are “case closed” on the issue of those truly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Whoever is bankrolling this anarchy is making the case for Congress to tackle not only birthright citizenship but also the rules regarding what process is due for such persons before we can remove the millions that Biden brought here, knowing exactly how difficult it would be to remove them. Stay the course, and I wish every federal agent safety and protection.
Mike Imprevento
June 9th, 2025
