authority

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

Dec. 17 (Asia Today) — The United Nations Command issued an unusual public statement Tuesday opposing South Korea’s ruling party push to enact legislation governing civilian access to the Demilitarized Zone, saying the Korean War Armistice Agreement gives the command authority to control entry to the area.

In a statement titled “Statement on the Authority and Procedures of the UN Command Military Armistice Commission,” the UNC said Article 1, Paragraph 10 of the Armistice Agreement assigns responsibility for civilian administration and relief activities south of the Military Demarcation Line within the DMZ to the commander of the United Nations Command.

The UNC said the Military Armistice Commission manages the DMZ and supervises the movement and activities of both military personnel and civilians to ensure compliance with the armistice and preserve stability. It said Article 1, Paragraph 9 grants the United Nations Command authority to control access to the DMZ.

“Except for those engaged in civil administration and relief work, or those granted special permission by the Military Armistice Commission, no one, whether military or civilian, may enter the Demilitarized Zone,” the statement said.

The command added that access requests are reviewed case by case under established procedures to ensure movements within the DMZ are not perceived as provocative or pose safety risks to commission personnel and visitors.

The UNC said the Military Armistice Commission is composed of personnel from UNC member nations, the South Korean military and civilians, and is responsible for managing the DMZ and investigating suspected armistice violations. It said all investigations are conducted with transparency and neutrality.

“We will continue our efforts to uphold the Armistice Agreement and stability on the Korean Peninsula, while maintaining the hopeful expectation that a permanent peace treaty can eventually be concluded,” the statement said.

The comments came as Democratic Party lawmakers Lee Jae-gang and Han Jeong-ae have sponsored bills known as the Act on the Peaceful Use of the Demilitarized Zone, which would allow the South Korean government to exercise access rights to the DMZ solely for non-military and peaceful purposes.

South Korea’s Ministry of Unification has expressed support for the legislation, saying it agrees with its intent. Unification Minister Chung Dong-young has also defended the bill, describing it as an issue of territorial sovereignty.

The UN Command previously said after meeting Cho Won-cheol, head of the Ministry of Government Legislation, that the Armistice Agreement remains a binding framework governing both civilian and military access to the Armistice Control Zone, including the DMZ.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI. © Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Spain’s government has fined San Francisco’s Airbnb $75 million for advertising unlicensed tourist rentals, officials said Monday.

The move is the latest government action in Spain against short-term rental companies such as Airbnb and Booking.com as the country grapples with a housing affordability problem, particularly in city centers.

The consumer rights ministry said the rentals didn’t include license numbers — a requirement in many regions in Spain — or listed license numbers that didn’t match what authorities had. Others had incorrect information about hosts, it said.

Airbnb said that it plans to challenge the fine in court.

The company said it was working with Spanish authorities to comply with a new national registration system for short-term rentals, and that more than 70,000 listings on the platform had added a registration number since January.

Spain’s leftist government and many Spaniards across the political spectrum see short-term rental companies as bearing responsibility for driving up housing costs.

The nation on the Iberian Peninsula is one of the world’s most visited countries and short-term holiday rentals have cut into many cities’ stretched housing supply.

“There are thousands of families living on the edge because of the housing crisis, while a few enrich themselves with business models that evict people from their homes,” Spain’s consumer rights minister, Pablo Bustinduy, said Monday in a statement.

In May, the consumer rights ministry ordered Airbnb to take down roughly 65,000 listings because of rule violations.

In 2024, Spain’s anti-trust watchdog fined Booking.com $448 million, saying the online travel company had abused its dominant market position in the country during the previous five years.

Local authorities in Barcelona have said they plan to phase out all of the 10,000 apartments licensed in the city as short-term rentals by 2028 to safeguard the housing supply for residents.

The political terrain of the country has dramatically changed since the presidential nominating process began in February. The most significant development was the outbreak of violence in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers accused of illegally beating Rodney G. King. New forces are arising in the land. They must be addressed.

A segment of the so-called marginalized and disenfranchised are stirring. In the past, they were written off as the “underclass,” the disadvantaged, even as “illegal.” They have been criminalized and dismissed. You could either feel sorry for them or hate them. The point was not to get near them.

They must now be reckoned with as a political force.

From the homeless to welfare mothers, from people with AIDS to the physically handicapped, thousands are flexing their organizational muscle, and using it on the streets, in pursuit of their economic and political interests. The unity in Los Angeles between the city’s two largest gangs, the Crips and Bloods, is expressive of this development.

The stirrings of “the bottom” of society aim toward certain goals: the end of scarcity in the midst of plenty; complete literacy; the ability to function competently at any chosen level of society; productive and livable employment; access to the most advanced health care in the world and a real voice in the policy decisions that affect their lives.

It is in this context that the Bloods and the Crips have come together to demand their place in the changing social fabric.

How is this possible when police and most of the media portray them as drug-dealing, inner-city terrorists?

It’s possible because these gangs are not monolithic. There is no single leadership. To be sure, there are gang members who care nothing about unity. For years, their violent acts dictated the lives and determined the deaths of thousands of young people in South-Central. Communities were pulled into the warfare.

Another group, less publicized, became politicized with every police beating, every inequity, every injustice. Years ago, these gang members, along with others in the community, began work on uniting the gangs. Until the April uprising, most of these efforts involved individuals. Since then, unity efforts have been carried out on a larger scale, with neighborhoods participating.

At the same time, gang members grew tired of the senseless killings. Many of these killings touched everyone, particularly when children were hit. This is why, in the aftermath of the uprising, graffiti appeared expressing such sentiments as “Mexicans & Crips & Bloods Together.” Police later erased most of the unity-related scrawl.

The gangs became political through observation and participation. Although many of the youth don’t read, they witness politics playing itself out every day. What the King beating did, what the uprising did, was help them cross the line of understanding what’s really going on.

The Bloods-Crips unity is about who will rule South-Central. A Los Angeles radio announcer recently estimated that there were some 640 liquor stores within a three-mile radius of South-Central, compared with no movie houses or community centers. Elsewhere, schools and streets are in disrepair. Manufacturing industries have been shuttered forever. Under these circumstances, you have to ask: Who really controls this community?

Not the community.

Although the people of South-Central share responsibility for their conditions–proportionately, more of them are in jail than any other community in the city–they don’t have any decisive control over their lives. This is a breakdown in the integration of responsibility and authority, a component of any democratic process. Those with the authority, including the police and city, county and state officials, fail to take any responsibility, thus abdicating any claim to leadership.

Yet it was precisely when the gangs came together that the police tried to break up as many “unity” rallies as they could, arresting gang leaders and inflaming the ire of residents of housing projects, where many of the rallies were held. The Los Angeles Police Department told the media that the gangs were going to turn on police officers, even ambush them. Yet no police officer in South-Central has been killed or severely hurt since April 29, the day the King-beating verdict came down.

Soon after the rebellion, local law enforcement circulated a flyer among themselves–and the media–that proclaimed the Crips and Bloods would “kill two cops for every gang member killed.” It was incendiary and a forgery. For example, most African-American gang leaders would never use the words “little black girl” to describe Latasha Harlins, who was slain by a Korean grocer last year. They know the flyer’s writing style was not even crudely close to the current street style. The flyer appeared to be yet another example of cartoon propaganda that has characterized previous allegations by police.

Meanwhile, the federal government has launched the largest investigation of its kind to destroy the gangs. Government officials are using the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the one used to put reputed crime boss John Gotti in jail, to go after every person associated with the Crips and the Bloods. It appears the FBI is targeting the L.A. gangs for political, not criminal, activity, since its efforts are directly related to the events beginning April 29.

This is not new, or surprising. After the 1965 Watts rebellion, several gangs united, some of them becoming the L.A. chapter of the Black Panthers. The federal government intervened, orchestrating the friction between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves organization.

Last year, nearly 600 L.A. youth were killed in gang- or drug-related incidents. Yet only now has Washington decided to come in, when the rate of shootings and deaths has dramatically fallen.

Despite the array of local, state and federal forces currently poised against L.A. gangs, gang unity is going to last. The Bloods and Crips have undergone a 22-year-old war without declared terms. To think that in five or six months there will be total unity is unrealistic. There are still some individual disputes. But the attacks have diminished in scale and number. The war is essentially over. The government–and police–should stop undermining the truce, stop fanning the emotional flames that will only bring on more death and destruction.

The Bloods and Crips are not asking for anything from anybody. This is what they have to do for themselves. They have even bypassed certain so-called leaders, including Jesse Jackson. They are not asking for outsiders to step in and dictate the terms of peace.

Recently, a plan to rebuild L.A., presumed to be from the Bloods and Crips, was floated around. Regardless of its origin, the plan was in clear contrast to the “official” rebuilding group, whose members are mostly from outside South-Central. The plan does not call for re-establishing the taco stands, the liquor stores or exploitative markets that previously dotted South-Central. Instead, it calls for improved housing, infrastructure and sanitation, for more parks, community centers and health-care facilities. It includes a proposal for upgrading all schools. It ends with the statement: “Give us the hammers and the nails, we will rebuild the city.”

This embodies a vision, something many police and some government officials would like the public to believe the gangs are incapable of possessing. This is taking responsibility. And it is a demand for the authority to carry it out.

Despite great odds, the Bloods and Crips have found common ground, a unified aim, to end the violence. Whether society is ready for this or not, it is the only path not littered with hypocrisy and blame. Indeed, it is one of the few for peace and justice still viable in Los Angeles.