breyer, and we welcome you to brown. [applause] justice breyer: thanks so much for those warm introduction. i'm delighted to be with you all today. i'm delighted that justice breyer is here today, i learned a lot from him. justice breyer: as did i, sir. >> let me tell you what justice breyer has been up to over the last 20 years. he has been attempting to articulate his judicial vision, and as the book that he is here to talk about today explains, it is a vision that in some respects, if you are in law school today, a lot of the action centers around originalism and textualism, and things that are regarded as not originalism has been sent to the wings. originalism and textualism occupy center stage. justice breyer has many significant moves in this book, if you are at all interested in law or interpretation, your library is incomplete without this book. i've learned immensely from it. one of the important moves that he makes is that he says i am a traditionalist. i am a traditionalist. and he claims the mantle of chief j

now, again, garvin, this is a temporary restraining order that was issued by judge breyer. so it has been already appealed to the ninth circuit court of appeals. but judge breyer is also holding another hearing next friday, the 20th, the 20th, to basically hear if he's going to extend this temporary restraining order to a more permanent order. great. sérgio quintana at the courthouse, thank you very much for your reporting today. sticking with immigration, we're also learning of new federal detentions happening in the bay area. the latest this morning in san francisco. according to immigration attorneys, three people were detained by federal agents at the immigration courthouse on samson street in san francisco. they also tell us the detentions happened after their hearings, which are scheduled for 830 this morning. an attorney tells us they were able to speak with one of the detainees, a woman, who told them her hearing had been continued by the judge. but still, ice agents allegedly detained her as she was leaving the courthouse. shortly after the detentions, word started

judge breyer rejected that idea. and meanwhile, congress wrote a statute, and the statute needs to be followed. how much deference you give the president when he invokes the statute, is probably not going to be decided immediately by judge breyer. and it's an open question. the constitution, you know, is written to protect our rights, individual rights. that's what the bill of rights is all about. it's also meant to allocate authority between the branches. and here you have the third branch trying to figure out which of the branches he needs to follow. >> this is very complicated. and we're certainly in times that are were a little unfamiliar. before i let you go real quickly, if he does rule on such a narrow ground, if you will, about the communication and whether that was done properly. and as you said, if they just send the email, you know, the restraining order could be gone. i'm just asking you practically, how does that work when you have thousands of troops actually there? do they just keep going out there and

judge breyer was asking questions of the united states department of justice attorneys. judge breyer asked the attorney for the united states department of justice how president trump came to his decision to activate the california national guard, and how the order was carried out. he then asked if president donald trump did not do this according to the statute, if he would have had the power to still do this. and according to the attorney for the united states department of justice, brett shumate, he said, quote, if he didn't comply with the statute, the president would still have the authority to that. a little after that, judge breyer took out a copy of the united states constitution and told attorney shumate that the united states was founded in response to a monarch, and that the constitution limits the powers of all branches of the government, telling him, quote, that's the difference between a constitutional government and king george. so a very interesting back and forth, but mostly from judge charles breyer with the attorneys for the department of justice. and a

meaning should judge breyer's order be held off until further proceedings, specifically, judge breyer'sd hearing next friday to see what would happen after that. but certainly the arguments are going to be essentially the same. the president has unreviewable authority. he declared that there was a rebellion. he declared that there was insurrection. and nobody can second guess that. and judge breyer said, i don't think so. you know, he referred to the to say, look, we overthrew a monarchy for a very different kind of government. and what you're asking for looks an awful lot like a monarchy. >> he made that very clear in his ruling. now, these are court orders and court decisions we're talking about. but i want to ask you about this conversation that happened today between bay area congressman ro khanna, defense secretary pete hegseth, over whether the pentagon would actually respect a court order to withdraw the troops. let's listen in. >> okay. >> we've always looked at the decisions. well, the vice president has said that he doesn't believe that the court should be respected in militar

if the panel were to affirm judge breyer's order.nk there's no doubt that it would immediately be taken up by the supreme court. if the panel reverses judge breyer's order, there's a possibility the supreme court will be asked to review the case by california, but that they will not have four justices who want to review it. there are three liberals, three in the middle, let's just say, or maybe six conservative. and if four of them, that is three liberals plus one don't want to review the case, then they don't have to. so it's possible, if the panel decides for the trump administration that it won't be reviewed by the supreme court. let me just say this is a preliminary motion, and judge breyer still has jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction and the trial on the merits. and that will go forward no matter what these courts say. there's still more to be done on this issue. >> and that proceeding, i believe, will be taking place this friday. they kind of mentioned that towards the end of the hearing today. i'm curious about your

and judge breyer basically said to him, well, wait a second.statute. you can't avoid the statute. that's what makes us different from a monarchy, because the president can't simply decide and declare that he can do what he wants to do. and that is the law. that is what distinguishes us from our friends across the sea, or at least used to. and so i think this judge really wanted to take it much further back to basics, like there's a statute, congress wrote this statute because congress has the authority to deploy the militia, and they delegated it to the president. in certain instances. your guy said, this is the statute he's relying on, and he's not fulfilling sort of the predicates for when you get to call up the guard. according to the statute he says he's invoking, that's got to be a problem. and for me, i don't care that the state of california wants to define the dispute more narrowly. what matters to me is whether the guy had authority in the first place. and as a judge, i'm entitled to sort of take it back tos.ark justice only less than

as we've said, judge breyer said that we will hopefully get that by the end of today. live in san francisco. monica madden, abc seven news. >> okay, monica, thanks so much. we are standing by for that ruling. if it should happen here in the next few minutes or before end of business today. now, an astonishing sight at a department of homeland security news conference, california senator alex padilla was dragged to the ground and handcuffed in la while trying to question dhs secretary kristi noem. abc seven news reporter kevin, from our sister station in los angeles has the story. >> i'm so thankful for the men and women of law enforcement. >> not long after, homeland security secretary kristi noem started her briefing here in la. >> senator alex padilla. i have questions for the secretary. >> california senator alex padilla tried to get a question in, but federal agents quickly swept him away. >> the fact of the matter is, a half a dozen violent criminals that are rotating on your on your. >> the fbi and secret service pushed the senator out of the briefing room and in

and then that general kind of told the governor after the fact in court today, judge breyer basically told the united states attorneys, quote, it would be the first time that i've ever seen an order go through someone without it actually going to someone, which is one of the first points in this hearing today where we kind of realize that the judge is skeptical of some of the arguments. janelle skeptical of some of the arguments that are being made by the united states department of justice attorneys in this particular situation. so what happened in court were all the arguments presented, and we're now just waiting for the judge's ruling. what happens now? yeah, it was actually a pretty lengthy hearing for what was usually a kind of a straightforward request. the hearing itself went on for more than an hour, but about 45 minutes of that hearing was of judge breyer asking questions of department of justice attorneys. at one point, judge breyer even held up the constitution to kind of describe to the to the attorneys for the department of justice from the united states the roles of the

but they may be more concerned simply because judge breyer's order was so broad. brush. i was a little surprised to see how far he went. so we'll see. >> we'll see. we'll be watching. david levine i know you'll be watching as well. thank you so much for coming in and for your insight. as always, we appreciate the expertise. >> any time. and can i say, happy father's day to everybody. >> all right. great. happy father's day. okay. thank you. well, one day after the nationwide know king's protest, demonstrators were back on the streets in san jose this afternoon. the silicon valley immigration committee organized the event in solidarity with protesters in los angeles, the group rallying at the corner of story and king streets on this father's day, where they condemned the deployment of the national guard and the marines in l.a. >> even though it's father's day showing up for undocumented fathers, showing up for undocumented families is part of father's day. >> shame on this government that has gotten out of control, that has not doesn't even follow their own laws. and taki

but breyer. breyer doesn't just bring up kings. breyer likened donald trump to king george. and to me and to those of us who read these orders with regularity and study them that gave up, that gave it away. we knew he was a he comes across at least as a partizan, not as a serious jurist who is impartial about the facts in front of him. >> well, we've seen these soundbites inserted in other opinions, and the question is, who are you speaking to? i mean, you're supposed to be speaking to the law. you're supposed to be speaking to the citizens as to what the law demands, not how you view presidents or figures or politics or parties. and that's where i think that he did cross the line here in a very significant way. now, the court of appeals is going to have to look at this. it could very well go to the supreme court. you know, since james madison, this has been an issue. and the supreme court said back in the madison administration that a president has given great deference in deciding when to deploy these types of forces, they generally do not second guess, as this opinion did

as justice breyer asked attorneys for both president trump and california governor gavin newsom to issue him briefs and argue what kind of power these attorneys believe the district court judge has in this case. now, this, of course, comes less than 24 hours after that ninth circuit court of appeals, that three judge panel unanimously ruled that the guard can be deployed. but they did say in their ruling that it is not insulated from judicial review. so a in part a victory for the trump administration, but it still opens the door for this process to be reviewed legally. now, that ruling was triggered by an earlier decision by this same justice justice breyer, who temporarily ordered a block to the deployment of the national guard that lasted only hours before the appeals court issued a stay in that which then, of course, led to that hearing earlier this week. and fast forward another few days to that unanimous ruling last night. so where things stand at this point, justice breyer again, here at the district court for the california northern district will wait until monday at noon, when t

if they uphold breyer by saying breyer is right, he didn't have the basis to do this. there's no rebellion. there's no showing that he can't enforce a law. i think they'll go to the supreme court immediately. >> bottom line, can the decision be appealed? did the president do this the right way, and does he have the power to do this? >> the difficulty in trying to predict this is it's so clear that there's no rebellion, and it's so terribly clear that there's been no showing that he can enforce the law, that on the one hand, you think the court could easily say, well, that's right. there was not a whole lot to argue about here. he could also see the court say, yeah, but, you know, judge breyer, you didn't give any account for the president's decision. you didn't give any deference to the president at all. and so you got to go back and do it again. >> j.r. stone abc seven news. >> a tech entrepreneur is pitching a really ambitious plan for the future of alameda's old naval air station and the future of tech in general here in the bay area. >> this is where frontier valle

but then there were other concerns here that judge breyer had. he said, i don't think this rises to the level of being a rebellion or the danger of a rebellion. the bottom line here is a win for california, who was arguing that the trump administration just didn't have the power to say, i want to pull the cord and federalize the national guard against the wishes of the governor. >>again, the judge's temporary restraining order takes effect at noon tomorrow, allowing the trump administration time to respond. and as kenny mentioned, the justice department has already filed a notice of appeal. we will certainly stay on top of this. meantime, we're watching the fallout after federal officers physically removed california senator alex padilla from a homeland security briefing in l.a. it happened when padilla interrupted and tried to question secretary kristi noem. >>to the rioters and to the politicians in los angeles. a half a dozen criminals that should rotating on your on your. hands, behind your back, hands behind your back. maybe. let me get on m

clinton appointee judge charles breyer, the brother of retired supreme court justice stephen breyer, that trump sending the national guard to california was illegal, both exceeding the scope of the statutory authority and violating the tenth amendment he ordered trump to return to newsom immediately. it was written like msnbc monologue saying president trump sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity, plaintiffs and the citizens of l.a. face a greater harm and unlawful militarization of their cities which inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life. total commentary not expected or should be gotten from a judge. gavin newsom, immediately, ran to the cameras to celebrate. >> i'm greater weight of the evidence by the order by his decision. today was really about a test of democracy. and today we passed the test. we, the people passed the test. >> laura: hours late the circuit of appeals blocked breyer's ruling at least until tuesday's hearing. here to break it down jonathan turley, law prof and fox news contributor. jonath

if they uphold breyer by saying breyer is right, he didn't have the basis to do this.e's no rebellion. there's no showing that he can't enforce a law. i think they'll go to the supreme court immediately. >> bottom line, can the decision be appealed? did the president do this the right way, and does he have the power to do this? >> the difficulty in trying to predict this is it's so clear that there's no rebellion, and it's so terribly clear that there's been no showing that he can enforce the law, that on the one hand, you think the court could easily say, well, that's right. there was not a whole lot to argue about here. he could also see the court say, yeah, but, you know, judge breyer, you didn't give any account for the president's decision. you didn't give any deference to the president at all. and so you got to go back and do it again. >> j.r. stone abc seven news. >> a tech entrepreneur is pitching a really ambitious plan for the future of alameda's old naval air station and the future of tech in general here in the bay area. >> this is where frontier valley, a

, who's the younger brother of retired justice stephen breyer. he held up a pocket constitution, saying this is about the president's authority, which he said is limited. he said, quote, that's the difference between a constitutional government and king george. and so the central question being how the president issued and how he communicated this order. last saturday, we saw president trump issue a memo to federalize the national guard. it was then sent to the department of defense and then to the head of the california national guard. but the state in this case is arguing that trump did not go through the proper communication channels by not directly informing gavin newsom about this. now, the doj says that the president has the ultimate authority, and eventually it made its way to governor newsom. so they're arguing that trump therefore complied with the law. now, we heard this issue in d.c. today where congressman ro khanna pressed defense secretary pete hegseth on whether or not the trump administration will follow judge breyer's ruling if t

so what kind of considerations do anticipate judge breyer?ll be making now based on the ruling by the federal appeals court. >> well, i think california will ask him to consider what are the facts on the ground right now in los angeles? you know it is it true that today the regular forces are not able to protect the federal law enforcement efforts that ice is engaged those are the subject of protests. but protest is not a rebellion. so, i will say, well, what are the facts today? is the troops order still valid? is it still necessary? and are they doing more than just protecting federal property in federal law enforcement? are they actually enforcing state civil criminal law which would violate the posse comitatus act. and he's really going to wait to hear from the party's. what did they think is next step in this issue? cat? >> and based on the 9th circuit ruling, does this create precedent for the president to call the national guard at any time? >> well, now and 2 things are really good about the 9th circuit's ruling last night. one is the

and we send it back to judge breyer for further proceedings. bottom line, the appellate court refused to block the president's action, calling up guardsmen to address l.a. demonstrators over the objection of the governor. president trump was quick to celebrate the ruling today. i mean, we had a big victory last night in the court. court of appeals with respect to los angeles, but really the country. vice president jd vance also adding new accusations during a visit to los angeles today. what happened here was a tragedy. you had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law, and they had rioters egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job. but governor newsom says he intends to keep fighting, saying what the president did hurt california more than helped. donald trump has pulled hundreds and hundreds of national guardsmen and women away from counter drug interdiction and work they're doing at the border. supporting border patrol as it relates to fentanyl interdiction and the governor's criticism

law professor rory little says judge breyer now has to find a legal middle ground. >>>>judge breyer may have to make a ruling on how far can the national troops go, how how far into civilian life can they go? how long can they stay there? can they stay there even when there seems to be no pressing need for them? >juliette>for now, national guard troops will stay under the control of president trump. governor newsom says he will keep fighting this legal battle, which could potentially reach the us supreme court. san francisco's da is announcing criminal charges against a man accused of running his car into a group of protesters last weekend at the no. king's march in san francisco. police say huawei leon drove his red tesla straight through the crowd on market street. at one point, they say a 69 year-old man grabbed the car's hood trying to get him to stop, but leon accelerated, pushing the man into the hood as he continued across market with the man hanging on when they hit guerrero street, police say leon accelerated again, suddenly hit the brakes to try and throw

it's a ruling currently paused by an appeals court from federal judge charles breyer. that order says that donald trump can no longer mobilize and command california's national guard troops over the wishes of california's governor, gavin newsom. the judge went even further, though, than what the state of california asked for, which was an order limiting what exactly the troops could do on the streets of los angeles. the judge said that donald trump's, quote, actions were illegal, both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th amendment to the united states constitution. this is from the ruling. quote, he must therefore return control of the california national guard to the governor of the state of california forthwith. the judge went on to say that donald trump's order deploying the national guard, quote, sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity. the citizens of los angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increa

breyer's decision. >> what breyer was considering is whether the president had the authority to federalize the. national guard. now, the president has permission to do that, but he has to meet certain circumstances, three of them. so first, is there an invasion by a foreign power? that was not question here. second, is there a rebellion that is ongoing here? the president said, yes, that was happening. and then third, whether the president was unable to execute federal law also in dispute here, judge breyer, in his what i thought was a thorough and detailed analysis, says there's not a factual basis to find either of those last two categories. this happened here. what's also interesting, though, is that he says that he disposes of the president's. >> argument. >> that that very question can be reviewed by judges. president trump's team says that that is not up to others to decide. he, the president, can decide whether there's a. >> rebellion. >> whether he's unable to execute the laws. and that's enough. judge breyer slaps that down wholeheartedly. and i would not go as far as to say that

but that is who judge breyer is. now, whether he shows himself to be a close relative to his more famous brother judicially remains to be seen. this afternoon, in terms of how fast or slow he's going to rule, this is a case where governor newsom and attorney general rob bonta wanted judge breyer to make a decision by 1 p.m. pacific time on tuesday as to whether they could get a restraining order. he clearly declined. that gave the government an opportunity to respond in papers yesterday scheduled a hearing. for today. he definitely could rule from the bench at the expiration of the hearing, but it may also take him a couple of days to explain his reasoning and writing. so i would put my money on sort of a third possibility, where he tells the parties where he is leaning or what the ultimate result is going to be, but doesn't memorialize it in a written opinion for a couple of days to come. >> christina and david, the bigger fight here seems to be between governor newsom and president trump. it comes down to this use

judge charles breyer. that order says that donald trump. >> can no. >> longer mobilize. >> and command. >> california's national. guard troops. >> over the wishes. >> of california's. >> governor, gavin newsom. >> the judge went even. >> further, though, than what the state of. >> california asked for. >> which was an. >> order limiting. >> what exactly the troops could. do on the streets. >> of los angeles. >> the judge. >> said that. >> donald trump's, quote, actions were. >> illegal. >> both exceeding the scope. >> of his statutory authority and violating. >> the. 10th amendment. to the. >> united states constitution. >> this is. >> from the ruling. >> quote, he. >> must therefore return control. >> of. >> the. >> california national. >> guard to the governor. >> of the. >> state of california forthwith. >> the judge went on to say that. >> donald trump's order. >> deploying the. national guard, quote. >> sets a dangerous. >> precedent for future domestic. >> military activity. the citizens. >> of. los

and that's what judge breyer did today. figure out what a rebellion means, and if there was a rebellion or a danger of rebellion. >> because there has to be a rebellion to justify this kind of use of troops. >> correct. >> there are three different preconditions that can be met. one of them is a rebellion or a danger of rebellion. he said, you know, both sides here gave me contemporaneous dictionary definitions. that's not enough for me. i'm going to go to dictionary definitions of rebellion from the late 1800s early 1900s, when the statute that donald trump himself relied upon was invoked. and based on that, here's what i conclude a rebellion. and i'm going to quote to you from the opinion a rebellion must not only be violent, but also be armed. second, rebellion must be organized. third, rebellion must be open and avowed. fourth, rebellion must be against the government as a whole, often with an aim of overthrowing the government rather than in opposition to a single law or issue. and on the basis of that definition, he c

and so judge breyer really pushed back on that in particular, because what judge breyer did is he said, wait a minute. we overthrew a monarchy and the constitution put came in place instead of a monarchy. so your position, mr. trump, is different from a monarchy. how isn't this supposed to be a limited government? isn't this supposed to be a government of three branches? and so isn't there some role to be played by the federal judiciary to at least probe something that needs a lot of deference? a president deserves plenty of deference here, but at some point the words like rebellion and insurrection have to mean something. and more than a little spray paint on a federal building, it has to be something like somebody is literally trying to overthrow the government. that's the said newsom's position. and it seemed as if judge breyer may go along, not with the whole thing. now, the state is not asking at this point with this temporary restraining order, is not asking for the troops to be sent back to 29 palms for the national guard to be sent home across california. instead, i think they

district judge charles breyer in san francisco asked both sides to submit briefings by noon today. last friday, judge breyer put off issuing any additional rulings, instead asking each side to address whether the posse comitatus act was violated. in l.a. that is, an act that prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on u.s. soil. ahead of breyer's hearing, the ninth circuit court of appeals handed the trump administration a victory, allowing the president to keep control of the guard troops deployed in response to protests over ice raids. a federal judge says the maryland man, who was mistakenly deported to el salvador and returned to the u.s. should be set free while he awaits a criminal trial on smuggling charges. the judge blasted the justice department in her order, saying prosecutors failed to make a convincing case that kilmer abrego garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. regardless of the judge's ruling, he is likely to remain in federal immigration custody. the senate is expected to hold a test vote this week on president trump's so-called bi

this came from from judge breyer charles breyer. he ruled very quickly after a hearing in which he openly mused about the founders worrying about kings. right. >> this is real constitutional history at work here. so let me run you through the main holdings. >> the bottom. >> line is. >> this federal district judge has blocked the president's. effort to federalize the national guard in california. now, a couple important things from the ruling. first of all, i think most importantly, this judge said that we as federal judges do have the power to review the president's determination here that the national guard is necessary, an argument the trump administration had made is this isn't even for you to consider at all. judge and the judge rejected that. the judge then found this is not a rebellion as the law construes that term reasonably. the quote from the opinion here is this is, quote, far short of rebellion. the judge rejected trump's assertion that he would be unable to execute the federal laws. the judge also found that the trump

district court judge charles breyer, who was asked to narrow his original ruling that temporarily blocked the deployment in los angeles. but just one day earlier, the ninth circuit court of appeals unanimously overruled breyer's earlier decision to block the deployment, citing with president trump's justice department and allowing the deployment to continue for now. law professor rory little says the judge now has to find a legal middle ground. >>judge breyer may have to make a ruling on how far can the national troops go, how how far into civilian life can they go? how long can they stay there? can they stay there even when there seems to be no pressing need for them? california will push that position. i mean, this is what district court judges have to do. frankly, every day is try to find the reasonable middle ground between the extreme parties positions on both sides. get on the sidewalk, get on the. >>it's confrontations like this one from last week in concord that both sides point to to bolster their cases. federal agents making an arrest and protesters getting physical, even trying

federal judge charles breyer heard arguments from both sides for about an hour.ewsom and attorneys have characterized the federal military intervention as unnecessary and an abuse of power. roy little is a constitutional law professor at uc law, san >>francisco. one strong argument is that the orders did not go through the governor's office, and the statute requires that the orders go through the governor's office. at the very least, the president should have called up the governor's office and said, hey, i'm going to do this. and they didn't do that. they they they just simply announced they were going to do >>it. attorneys for trump argued 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 an invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. >>their strongest argument is if you look at the pictures of what happened, you know, saturday and sunday, things seem to be out of control. and that's when we send in the national guard. >>at one point during the hearing

judge charles breyer ordered the trump administration to return control of the national guard back to the state of california by noon today. earlier this week, president trump had sent about 4000 national guard troops to the streets of los angeles to help ice with immigration enforcement. governor gavin newsom spoke immediately after the judge's ruling. >> i hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach, we push back against these authoritarian tendencies of a president that has pushed the boundaries, push the limit. >> but it turns out it's just the beginning of a continuing legal battle. late last night, the president's attorneys filed an appeal to block judge breyer's order from going into effect, and the appeals court complied. so now those 4000 national guard troops remain in los angeles and remain under president trump's control. it will be up to a three judge panel from the ninth circuit court of appeals to decide whether that should continue and what happens next. that appeals court has scheduled a hearing in this case for next tuesd

one of the things that judge breyer does, in his opinion, is he credits all the facts that the trump administration offered him, essentially. he says, look, i don't dispute that every mango that was chucked at law enforcement officers, every firework, every piece of concrete that you say was thrown at ice officers that that happened. and yet, notwithstanding that, you weren't in your authority because this doesn't constitute a rebellion and you haven't shown that you were thoroughly unable to execute the laws of the united states, just having an impediment. >> to your. >> execution of immigration laws isn't what the statute demands. so could donald trump continue to send national guard to other places in the country by mimicking the order that he sent down last weekend? sure. but do i think this will ultimately withstand judicial scrutiny? i wouldn't necessarily bet so. and so the trump administration may be thinking about that over the coming days, wanting to see how this plays out in los angeles. or alternatively, they may deploy national guardsmen in other areas of the country whe

district court judge charles breyer, who was asked to narrow his original ruling that temporarily blocked the deployment in los angeles. but just one day earlier, the ninth circuit court of appeals unanimously overruled breyer's earlier decision to block the deployment, citing with president trump's justice department and allowing the deployment to continue for now. law professor rory little says the judge now has to find a legal middle ground. >>judge breyer may have to make a ruling on how far can the national troops go, how how far into civilian life can they go? how long can they stay there? can they stay there even when there seems to be no pressing need for them? california will push that position. i mean, this is what district court judges have to do, frankly, every day is try to find the reasonable middle ground between the extreme parties positions on both sides. on the sidewalk, get on the sidewalk. >>it's confrontations like this one from last week in concord that both sides point to to bolster their cases. federal agents making an arrest and protesters getting physical, even t

breyer is expected to rule in the coming days. well, firefighters in contra costa county had their hands full this afternoon, and their aggressive response showing the level of concern about these dry, gusty conditions. and mackovic has been tracking the multiple fires that did pop up. >>now, firefighters were able to get a handle on this fire in rodeo. earlier, it was burning near several homes and close to highway four. it broke out at around noon in some grassland and quickly grew to burn about one square mile. here is a look at the location. this is on the eastern edge of rodeo, just north of highway four and east of sterling drive, and cal fire was not messing around with this fire. they used water from the nearby carquinez strait to help stop the spread, and they called in the cavalry as far as their air attack, including this 737 air tanker. it used to be a southwest airlines plane. it's here on loan from the government in australia, a tanker holds 4000 gallons of fire retardant. right now, it's operating out of mcclellan i

federal judge charles breyer heard arguments from both sides for about an hour. newsom and attorneys have characterized the federal military intervention as unnecessary and an abuse of power. roy little is a constitutional law professor at uc law, san francisco. >>>>one strong argument is that the orders did not go through the governor's office, and the statute requires that the orders go through the governor's office. at the very least, the president should have called up the governor's office and said, hey, i'm going to do this. and they didn't do that. they they just simply announced they were going to do it. >>>>attorneys for trump argued 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 an invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. >>>>their strongest argument is if you look at the pictures of what happened, you know, saturday and sunday, things seem to be out of control. and that's when we send in the national guard. >>>>at one point during the he

professor rory little says judge breyer is ruling was thorough and would be hard to strike down. but that doesn't mean it won't happen. the politics of a panel that has to judge is relatively young, got appointed by president trump. may lean towards ruling for president trump. there isn't any doubt that this is going to go up to the supreme court, no matter which way the panel decides. but the supreme court taking the case, especially regarding a temporary restraining order, isn't a sure thing. if the supreme court wants to get involved, they could stop everything and senate for further proceedings. that's kind of within their discretion. but they could also just denied everything. if the case is returned to the lower court hearing will be held for further evi ence will be presented. a decision will be made and that again, can be appealed to the 9th circuit and ultimately to the u.s. supreme court. i think it's very important to recognize what an important historical moment we are at idea that a president can order combat troops into civilian life in reaction to first amendment p

little says judge breyer's 36 page order is thorough and could be hard to overrule. but that doesn't mean it won't happen. the politics of a panel that has to judge is relatively young. got is appointed by president trump. may lean towards ruling for president trump. there isn't any doubt that this is going to go up to the supreme court, no matter which way the panel decides. but the supreme court taking the case, especially regarding a temporary restraining order, isn't a sure thing. if the supreme court wants to get involved, they could stop everything and senate for further proceedings. that's kind of within their discretion. but they could also just denied everything. if the case is returned to the lower court hearing will be held further evidence will be presented. a decision will be made and that again, can be appealed to the 9th circuit and ultimately to the u.s. supreme court. this is very important constitutional moment about what is president's authority year. and it's a dangerous moment that the president has given his authority because it's very unclear w

judge breyer decided on that case. he issued a tro. an appeals court in the ninth circuit put a stay on that tro pending appeal. that is what we've been covering and monitoring up until now. today there was supposed to be a hearing, but that, again is on hold. and we're just seeing some of those attorneys walk out at this point. now, last night talking about that ruling from the judges, the judges ruled unanimously that the president did not overstep his authority in deploying the national guard. the state argued that president trump failed to adequately communicate the deployment, but judges ruled thahat governor newsom has no power to veto or countermand the president's order. their decision reads both irreparable harm and public interest weigh in favor of defendants who have an uncontested interest in the protection of federal agents and property, and the faithful execution of law. now, today, the state was looking for a preliminary injunction, which would have far reaching consequences than a tro the merits of their argument today.

administration's request to delay an order a few hours earlier by federal district judge charles breyer. ktvu zac sos is live tonight in the newsroom with the latest on this legal back and forth here, zach. >> yeah, truly remarkable shift in this case this afternoon. governor gavin newsom, newsom stepping in front of the podium at the federal courthouse in san francisco, essentially declaring victory after today's district court ruling. that ruling, now in limbo. >> today, was really about test of democracy. and today we passed the test. we the people passed the test. >> governor gavin newsom, minutes after a federal district judge in san francisco issued a temporary restraining order blocking president trump's use of the national guard in los angeles. that decision was scheduled to return control of the troops to the governor on friday, but an appeals court late thursday temporarily blocking that order until a hearing on june 17th. a quick turn of events for the governor, who just hours earlier had celebrated the district court ruling with this. >> today's order makes clear that he is

ruling for governor newsom. >> judge breyer is trying to figure out, did he just lose power? did he just lose jurisdiction over those claims that were appealed to the ninth circuit, or did he basically lose power over this entire case? >> judge breyer is asking both sides to submit briefs by monday, addressing whether president trump still has jurisdiction to modify or rule on other aspects of governor newsom, along with the state's legal challenge, alleging violations of the pace act, a 19th century federal law restricting the use of u.s. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. east bay congressman mark desaulnier wants to ensure a shuttered federal prison will not reopen for the benefit of ice. the former all women's prison, fci dublin, closed last year after a sex abuse scandal involving high ranking officials and guards. at least seven former employees are in prison. there have been fears the trump administration could turn the facility into an ice detention holding center, after a union official told us federal immigration officials visited the site in february.

but the fight isn't over. >> the question today is going to be whether judge breyer could issue what would normally be the next step, which is a preliminary injunction. so we'll see what judge breyer thinks he can do after digesting this opinion that we got last night. >> now, both the president and governor's teams were back in judge breyer's san francisco courtroom today. it was a short hearing, and judge breyer has asked both sides to submit more briefs before they return to court on monday. now, ktvu political reporter greg lee was there. he'll bring us all the latest details this afternoon, james. >> conversation continuing in court. thank you tory. meanwhile, vice president jd vance coming to california today, the white house says the vice president will head to los angeles, where he will meet with leadership at a federal joint operations center and a mobile command center. he'll also meet with marines. the white house's press release does not specifically mention immigration enforcement or protests, but he is expected to address the recent demonstrations in southern california

and so breyer's hearing would then be canceled. so i think it's unlikely you'll see the hearing happen on friday. but that doesn't mean it's canceled. it just means it's postponed until the higher courts get done. with all the preliminary stuff. >> it's unclear what will happen to judge breyer's hearing in san francisco tomorrow. if the appeals court does not issue a decision by the end of today. breyer's initial ruling was temporary, so his hearing tomorrow is to consider a longer lasting order, in this case. live in the newsroom. monica madden, abc seven news. >> we will continue to wait for that decision. monica, thank you so much. the los angeles dodgers say they were denied entry to ice agents wanting to access stadium grounds. dozens of protesters arrived in response to agents who appeared to be staging near the parking lot area. rob hayes, from our sister station in los angeles has that story. >> it's not unique to see the entrance to dodger stadium parking lot packed with people and vehicles, but this morning, those people

have to absorb it, you will have an opportunity to review that in the 36 page order from justice breyer that laid that out and it will come back under the rightful command from the governor of the state of california. do it peacefully, it's a vulgar display. it's a kindness thing you see kim jung-un, you see it with putin, you see it with dictators around the world that are weak and just want to demonstrate strength. weakness masquerading as strength. to vet the dear leader on his birthday, what an embarrassment. honestly. that's about as small as it gets. how weak, how weak do you have to be to commandeered the military to set you on your birthday in a vulgar display of weakness. that's donald trump. >> one of the messages and conversations you have been having? gov. newsom: these governors have been waiting for a decision, i haven't been had a chance to talk to the governors. every republican governor, i remember one of them by the name of kristi noem who just a few months ago was on there with the spokespeople from the trump administration, sean hannity, and was going on and on about

district judge charles breyer said the president overstepped by deploying roughly 4000 national guard troops to l.a. amid immigration enforcement protests, ordering trump to return control of the national guard to newsom by noon friday. >> i want to make this clear the national guard will come back under my authority. by noon tomorrow, the national guard will be redeployed to what they were doing before donald trump commandeered them. >> but an appeals court hours later blocked the federal judge's order until next week, when it will take up the matter. the governor's office reiterating this is not a reversal of judge breyer's decision, and that the governor is still confident. >> today was really about a test of democracy. and today we passed the test. >> the governor saying he is extremely happy with this decision and believes it will stand up if it reaches the supreme court. >> it's a big win for the governor, but it's also obviously not the last word. >> melissa michaelson is a political science expert and says no matter the court ruling, there is still one big question. >> at some

were you disappointed the judge breyer didn't address that issue? that's something that you expect to develop. >> well, there's been a lot of a lot of rhetoric from pete. that's his name that they've quote unquote, been deployed. but it doesn't appear they have been, but they were making you believe that. and so i think the judge was waiting for the evidence that they actually been deployed into los angeles, which they appear not to be. of course, they're not coordinating with anybody on this. so he's just waiting for that evidence. obviously, they moved to another location for training exercises. but there's a bottom line. the police do policing military for the battlefield. you know, the idea that these unbelievably brave young men and women that i work with, that we have had the benefit of their extraordinary contribution all across this state. i gave you three examples. what more evidence do we need of the work they did during the wildfires in los angeles, and all the work they did to secure locations and keep property and personal lives safe ov

judge breyer saying, quote, we're talking about the president exercising his authority.hority. that's the difference between a constitutional government and king george. carol, this judge ruled very quickly, and he actually went beyond what the state had asked for. he called the president's actions pertaining to the national guard illegal. where do you think this is headed? and how long could this legal battle end up lasting? >> well, it may not seem like things are moving very fast to people on the ground, but for the court system, this actually is pretty fast. the ninth circuit said the government, or i'm sorry that the state can actually file their papers on sunday, and then the federal government can file their papers on monday. and then there will be oral argument by zoom on tuesday. so probably be a decision from the appellate court sometime, maybe tuesday or wednesday. maybe it will go longer than that. but then there will undoubtedly be an appeal to the supreme court. the supreme court can decide to accept that case for appeal, or it may decide not to. that remai

>> were you disappointed the judge. >> breyer didn't address that issue? is that something that. >> you expect to develop? >> well, there's been a lot of. >> a lot. >> of rhetoric from pete headset. >> that's his name. >> that they've quote unquote been deployed, but it doesn't appear they have been, but they were making you believe that. and so i think the judge is waiting for the evidence that they actually have been deployed into los angeles, which they appear not to be. of course, they're not coordinating with anybody on this. so he's just waiting for that evidence. obviously, they moved to another location for training exercises. but here's the bottom line. the police do policing military for the battlefield, you know, idea that these unbelievably brave young men and women that i work with, that we have had the benefit of their extraordinary contribution all across this state. i gave you three examples. what more evidence do we need of the work they did during the wildfires in los angeles, and all the work they did to secure locations. >> and. >> keep