California Judge Questions Trump’s Authority Over National Guard

Key Takeaways

• The Trump administration federalized California’s national guard in June, deploying 4,000 troops to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids.
• California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the move, calling it unprecedented and illegal, and the state filed a lawsuit against the federal government.
• Judge Charles Breyer has expressed skepticism over the federal government’s authority to maintain control over the national guard troops, citing the changing situation in Los Angeles and the availability of active-duty troops.
• The case has been unfolding in the courts for months, with Breyer previously ruling that the deployment was illegal and ordering the administration to return control of the troops to California.
• The administration argues that federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state guard troops as long as he deems necessary, citing the need to protect federal property and personnel.

Introduction to the Lawsuit
The lawsuit between California and the Trump administration has been ongoing for months, with the state challenging the federal government’s authority to deploy national guard troops to Los Angeles. The Trump administration federalized the state’s national guard in June, dispatching approximately 4,000 troops in response to protests over immigration raids. Despite opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom, the administration maintained that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property. The state quickly filed a lawsuit, arguing that the move was unprecedented and illegal. The case has been unfolding in the courts, with Judge Charles Breyer presiding over the proceedings.

The Hearing and Judge Breyer’s Ruling
During a recent hearing in San Francisco, Judge Breyer appeared skeptical of the federal government’s case. He argued that the situation in Los Angeles had changed since the troops were first deployed and questioned whether the administration could command the state’s national guard indefinitely. Breyer noted that "no crisis lasts forever" and that the administration had access to tens of thousands of active-duty troops in California. He pressed an attorney for the government to provide evidence that state authorities were either unable or unwilling to help keep federal personnel and property safe. The judge’s comments suggest that he is considering issuing a preliminary injunction to return control of the remaining national guard troops in Los Angeles to the state.

The Administration’s Argument
The justice department attorney, Eric Hamilton, argued that federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state guard troops as long as he deems necessary. Hamilton cited the need to protect federal property and personnel, noting that someone had thrown two incendiary devices into a federal building on Monday. He also argued that the court did not have the authority to review how the president manages a guard mission that is in progress. However, even if it could, the court had to consider the violence that occurred in Los Angeles in June, Hamilton said. The administration’s argument is that the president has the authority to deploy national guard troops to maintain law and order, and that the court should not second-guess his decision.

The Background of the Case
The Trump administration’s call-up of the California national guard was the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor. The move marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. The national guard troops were stationed outside a federal detention center downtown, where protesters had gathered, and later sent to the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests. California sued, arguing that the president was using guard members as his personal police force in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs. The administration argued that courts could not second-guess the president’s decision that violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute US laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion.

Previous Rulings and Implications
In September, Judge Breyer ruled after a trial that the deployment violated the law. Other judges have blocked the administration from deploying national guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago. The ruling has significant implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states. If the administration is allowed to maintain control over the national guard troops, it could set a precedent for future deployments without the consent of state governors. On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of California, it could limit the president’s ability to use the military for domestic law enforcement purposes. The case is being closely watched, and the outcome will have significant implications for the country.

Conclusion and Future Developments
The case between California and the Trump administration is ongoing, with Judge Breyer considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction to return control of the national guard troops to the state. The administration’s argument that federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state guard troops as long as he deems necessary is being challenged by the state’s argument that the deployment is illegal and violates the law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and will be closely watched by lawmakers, legal experts, and the public. As the case continues to unfold, it is likely that there will be further developments and rulings that will shape the future of national guard deployments and the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.