In an escalating legal battle, a federal court hearing is set to commence today at 1:30 p.m. in San Francisco to decide whether President Donald Trump or California Governor Gavin Newsom holds the authority to deploy the California National Guard to Los Angeles.
This issue has emerged amidst significant unrest triggered by federal immigration enforcement actions, and it raises critical questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
Governor Newsom, alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta, has challenged Trump’s deployment of nearly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, arguing that the actions are unnecessary and represent an abuse of power.
During a fiery speech on Tuesday, Newsom asserted that Trump’s maneuvers parallel those of “failed dictators,” emphasizing that authoritarian regimes instigate conflict to consolidate power. His comments reflect broader concerns about the implications of invoking military action for domestic law enforcement purposes.
Newsom criticized the President’s decision, stating, “Trump and his loyalists, they thrive on division because it allows them to take more power.”
While some legal experts contend that challenging presidential authority in this matter may be difficult for the governor, Jessica A. Levinson, a constitutional law expert, noted on the Dan Abrams Show that preventing the President from exercising his powers could prove challenging.
The administration argues that the deployment of armed troops was necessary to restore order amid what they termed “incidents of violence and disorder” in the city due to protests. Critics, however, including Newsom, argue that sending military personnel, particularly Marines skilled in battlefield tactics, may escalate rather than alleviate tensions, further complicating the situation.
The controversial deployment was authorized by President Trump following protests against federal immigration raids. His directive stated that the National Guard would “temporarily protect” immigration enforcement officers and federal properties amid unrest.
It’s noteworthy that this is the first time since 1965 a President has federalized a state National Guard without the governor’s request. Past Presidents, like Richard Nixon, have utilized a federal statute for civil order, primarily for situations such as labor strikes.
Legal action began when Newsom formally requested Trump to rescind his orders, which was followed by a lawsuit filed by Newsom and Bonta seeking a temporary restraining order against the deployment.
The arguments presented in Newsom’s legal challenge extend beyond a mere request to halt the military presence; they assert that such federal action infringes upon state sovereignty and could exacerbate social unrest rather than quell it.
The lawsuit has attracted support from a number of former military leaders, including retired four-star generals and admirals who have served under various Presidents from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. They expressed concerns that Trump’s lack of a clearly defined military role for the troops raises potential risks to the essence of their mission, questioning the appropriateness of politicizing military actions in a domestic context.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced scrutiny during a Congressional hearing when he declined to confirm whether he would abide by court rulings regarding the deployment, underscoring the complexities surrounding military orders.
Governor Newsom’s lawsuit argues unequivocally that no military force is necessary to handle the situation in Los Angeles.
“To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country,” the suit pointed out.
It further posits that the civil turmoil can be managed effectively by state and local authorities without the intervention of military personnel.
On the opposing side, Trump’s legal team asserts that the President has the authority to issue deployment orders through state officials, without needing the governor’s consent.
Their interpretation challenges the notion that a governor can impede a Presidential order under federal statute governing such military mobilizations.
The dispute presents a crucial examination of executive power in a domestic context, particularly regarding the deployment of military forces during times of civil unrest. Levinson warns that asserting the governor’s consent could lead to a precedent whereby any governor could effectively block federal actions by the President.
This rare legal confrontation over military deployment without gubernatorial support has drawn only limited precedents in U.S. history. It raises significant questions that might reshape the traditional understanding of state versus federal authority in crises.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of the court’s rulings could reverberate through decades of established norms regarding military involvement in domestic situations, pointing to an ongoing debate over executive overreach in the American political landscape.
image source from：https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/06/los-angeles-marines-newsom-lawsuit/
