The ongoing legal battle surrounding the deployment of the California National Guard to Los Angeles has sparked significant discussion regarding the authority of President Donald Trump versus that of Governor Gavin Newsom.
A federal court hearing took place in San Francisco, where the core issue is the degree of control either the President or the Governor holds over the National Guard.
Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta initiated a lawsuit against President Trump amidst urgent circumstances after the president ordered troop deployments in response to unrest following federal immigration operations.
During the hearing, Judge Charles Breyer cast doubt on the Trump administration’s assertion that it possesses unfettered authority to federalize the National Guard without state approval.
While Judge Breyer seemed to maintain a hands-off approach regarding the potential deployment of Marines, he expressed concerns about the implications of a president acting without the governor’s consent.
Breyer stated, “The president is of course limited to his authority. That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”
The arguments from the Newsom administration aimed for an immediate order to restrict the military’s role to purely protecting federal property.
In light of the current situation, the administration’s lawyers emphasized their worries that federal troops may exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them.
Critics of Trump’s deployment, including Newsom, warned that sending Marines—who are typically trained for combat—into urban areas may escalate violence rather than provide stability.
Trump’s order to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles came on a Saturday, citing violence and disorder stemming from protests against immigration enforcement actions in the area.
As part of his measures, Trump authorized 4,000 National Guard members and prepared 700 Marines for potential deployment.
In his statements, Breyer appeared hesitant to render any rulings at this moment, particularly around the Marines, since they are not yet on the ground in Los Angeles.
Until now, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, a law that would provide him greater latitude in deploying forces domestically in a law enforcement capacity.
Currently, the National Guard has been ordered to uphold the safety of federal agents and facilities.
California’s legal stance claims that not only are the military deployments harmful to state sovereignty, but they also drain local resources and escalate tensions amidst already rising civil unrest.
Prominent support for Newsom’s position emerged from two former service secretaries along with six retired four-star generals who argue that Trump’s failure to invoke the Insurrection Act has left the deployments lacking definition and purpose.
Their filing noted risks associated with utilizing military personnel without clear reasoning which could politicize military duties.
Newsom’s lawsuit emphasized that the situation in Los Angeles did not warrant military intervention and pointed out that the unrest was manageable by local authorities.
“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 contended.
Moreover, Newsom and Bonta have asserted that federal law does not allow the president to act unilaterally without necessitating approval from state governors before deploying the National Guard.
In court filings, the Trump legal team took an opposing stance, stating that the president retains the authority to issue orders through state officials.
The argument presented by Trump’s representation claimed, “The statute is thus clear that the orders are issued by the President, and they are conveyed through State officials.”
However, Judge Breyer encouraged a critical examination of this interpretation, questioning how it could be deemed “through” a governor if that governor was not provided with the order itself.
Breyer rejected claims that Trump adequately briefed Newsom on the situation, highlighting a lack of clear documentation regarding any communication between the two parties.
This ongoing case thus tests the limits of executive power against the backdrop of constitutional responsibilities between state and federal governments.
With the proceedings still unfolding, it remains uncertain how the federal administration or the Department of Defense will respond to the judge’s remarks or potential rulings.
The legal implications of this case will likely resonate beyond California as they touch on crucial questions about governance, military deployment, and state sovereignty.
image source from：https://laist.com/news/can-trump-deploy-troops-in-la-a-federal-judge-hears-newsoms-case-today
