Trump Asserts Authority to Deploy National Guard Amid California Legal Challenge

Trump Asserts Authority to Deploy National Guard Amid California Legal Challenge

The Justice Department has reaffirmed its stance regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to mobilize U.S. National Guard troops in California. The department labeled the emergency lawsuit filed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom to halt this move as a “crass political stunt” that jeopardizes American lives.

This legal dispute revolves around whether Trump, in his capacity as commander in chief, possesses the power to federalize the National Guard without the express consent of the California governor. Both parties are scheduled to appear in court on Friday as a judge considers California’s request for injunctive relief.

Legal Arguments Presented by the Trump Administration

In a recent court filing, attorneys representing the Trump administration contended that the president has “no obligation” to consult with Newsom or even to inform him prior to mobilizing the National Guard. The administration argues that overriding the governor’s authority raises significant constitutional issues.

The court filing stated, “The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief’s military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less.” The lawyers characterized this potential judicial intervention as “unprecedented and constitutionally anathema,” highlighting the dangers of such a scenario.

Governors’ Pushback Against Federal Actions

Governor Newsom is unlikely to accept these arguments without opposition. On Tuesday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta initiated legal action against the Trump administration, accusing the president of unlawfully federalizing the National Guard without seeking the necessary consent from the state’s governor.

Bonta asserted that Trump’s actions violated legal and procedural norms, emphasizing that the National Guard is under dual authority, and many mobilization efforts must go through the governor first. This controversy raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between state and federal jurisdictions.

Temporary Restraining Order Denied

In a recent hearing, the judge responsible for overseeing the case rejected California’s request for a temporary restraining order that would halt Trump’s actions. Nevertheless, the judge ordered both parties to return to court on Friday to discuss the request for broader injunctive relief.

Understanding the Legal Foundation

The ongoing legal battle is rooted in 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that Trump cited in his memo to deploy the National Guard. This law permits the president to mobilize National Guard troops and federal soldiers in instances of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government.

According to the law, 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.” However, lawyers representing Newsom argue that the situation does not constitute a rebellion.

Rebuttal from Newsom’s Legal Team

Attorneys for Newsom articulated their position in court, asserting that there has been no actual rebellion or insurrection in California. They maintained that the protests occurring in the state do not reach the level of unrest seen in Los Angeles and other major cities in prior years.

During the court proceedings, Newsom’s legal team contended that these protests are not sufficiently severe to warrant federal intervention. They stated, “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection.” This assertion refutes the justification used by the Trump administration to take unilateral actions.

Republican Attorneys General Support Trump

A coalition of 26 Republican state attorneys general expressed their support for Trump by submitting an amicus brief in the case. They argued that the president’s decision to federalize the National Guard in response to ICE-related riots and protests represents the “right response” to restore order.

The attorneys general argued, “In California, we’re seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement. When local and state officials won’t act, the federal government must.” This statement illustrates a stark division in viewpoints between state officials and federal leadership.

The Implications of the Court’s Decision

The outcome of this high-stakes legal case may set a significant precedent regarding the interplay between state and federal power, especially in times of civil unrest. As both sides prepare for the upcoming court date, the implications stretch beyond California and could influence how future emergencies are managed at federal and state levels.

This legal battle encapsulates the complexities involved in crisis management in an increasingly polarized political landscape. As discussions continue, observers will be keenly focused on how the courts handle such challenges to executive authority and the rule of law.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.