The legal confrontation over President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy National Guard troops in California continues to escalate, as Department of Justice lawyers presented their arguments in court today.
This case centers on whether the president has the power to commandeer state National Guard troops and the extent to which courts can challenge that action.
During a remote video hearing, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared somewhat receptive to the Trump administration’s arguments, contrasting sharply with a lower court ruling issued just last week.
The backdrop of this legal battle involves a curfew imposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in response to the federal deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines due to immigration protests.
California’s Democratic leadership, including Governor Gavin Newsom, has called this deployment unnecessary.
A pivotal moment in the hearing occurred when a judge questioned whether a president can call in the National Guard to respond to street protests under a rarely used law from the early 20th century without facing judicial scrutiny.
The administration’s lawyer firmly asserted that there should be no court intervention in such a decision.
When pressed by Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, about the lack of rationale behind the invocation of this law, the DOJ’s Brett Shumate maintained that if the statute is deemed unreviewable, it simply is.
Joseph Nunn, a national security attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice, criticized the administration’s expansive interpretation of presidential authority.
He accused the Trump administration of asserting that they could federalize state National Guards for any reason or none at all, emphasizing that this contradicts the democratic principles upheld in the United States.
Nunn noted the panel’s focus on the court’s review powers, indicating their awareness of the unique implications surrounding this case.
He observed that despite multiple chances to moderate their broad claims, the federal representatives maintained their stance.
The immediate implications of this hearing are significant for California, particularly concerning whether National Guard troops will remain deployed in Los Angeles as the case unfolds.
A ruling from this week could lead to an appeal to a larger panel of judges in the 9th Circuit or potentially escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today’s discussions centered on the procedural question of whether the National Guard can remain in the city while awaiting an outcome in the lower court.
The legal dispute between Trump and Newsom is likely to proceed along several parallel tracks until a conclusive decision is reached by an appropriate court.
Also significant is the scheduled hearing for Judge Charles Breyer, who previously sided with Newsom, regarding a potential preliminary injunction on Trump’s deployment of military personnel, which is set for Friday.
For Newsom’s legal team to succeed in this injunction, they will need to demonstrate a higher likelihood of prevailing in the overarching trial.
Both sides engaged in intricate legal arguments during the hearing, with judges proactively challenging the assertions made by both the Trump administration and California representatives.
Shumate, representing the DOJ, employed a dual argument strategy: firstly, insisting that the administration adhered to federal law concerning the federalization of state National Guards in cases of perceived rebellion or danger, and secondly, claiming that courts lack the constitutional authority to question such executive decisions.
The potential outcomes of this case weigh heavily on both sides.
Shumate argued that rescinding control from the president would pose risks to public safety and property.
In contrast, California attorney Samuel Harbourt countered that the unnecessary federalization of the National Guard could compromise state responses to other crises like wildfires, being that one-third of the state’s National Guard is already deployed in Los Angeles.
He emphasized that the president’s actions undermine the core democratic principle of civilian oversight of military forces.
This perspective was echoed by eight former U.S. Army and Navy secretaries, as well as retired generals and admirals, who expressed their concern.
They emphasized that using military personnel for domestic law enforcement is inappropriate given the risks of politicizing the military, which could damage public trust and troop morale.
The arguments presented over the past week and those in today’s hearing echoed one another, with Trump’s legal team asserting that there is a state of rebellion present in the streets, while Newsom’s attorneys argued that local law enforcement is capable of managing protests without additional federal intervention.
The tone of the legal exchanges reflects the growing tension in the relationship between Trump and Newsom.
Just last week, Newsom referred to Trump as resembling “failed dictators,” while Trump’s team retaliated, describing their arguments as “terrifying.”
In a recent social media post, Trump labeled “radical left Democrats” as “sick of mind,” and suggested that efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants should be intensified in major cities, including Los Angeles and Chicago.
Despite this fervent rhetoric, Trump has not fully utilized his executive powers to invoke military actions in California, which would entail applying the Insurrection Act.
Instead, the National Guard’s role, as it currently stands, is limited to protecting federal property and officers.
The legal basis for the president’s current call-up of the National Guard stems from an obscure law crafted in the early 1900s.
An amendment added in 1908 confusingly states that presidential orders for federalizing National Guard troops “shall be issued through the governors.”
The precise meaning of “through” has become a contentious point in the ongoing legal debates surrounding this case.
Nunn remarked on the unclear nature of the statute, suggesting it is not among Congress’s finest legislative efforts.
California’s legal team contended that such presidential actions were extremely rare; they cited that only President Richard Nixon had previously invoked this law to call up the National Guard—specifically during a USPS strike in 1970.
In contrast to Nixon’s situation, which required the National Guard to replace striking postal workers, Los Angeles currently has a robust police presence managing protests effectively.
Newsom’s legal team maintained that there was no current justification for the National Guard’s presence, noting that the protests had significantly diminished, with the crowd dispersing within hours of police intervention.
They challenged the notion that circumstances in Los Angeles constituted a rebellion or even posed a legitimate risk of rebellion.
As the case unfolds, the implications of the court’s decisions remain critical not just for California but for the principles of civilian control over the military and the broader interpretation of presidential powers.
image source from：calmatters
