Federal courts have found themselves at the center of a legal dispute regarding President Donald Trump’s decision to take control of the California National Guard in the wake of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate articulated the Trump administration’s position during a hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, claiming that the judiciary holds no authority to review the president’s decision to federalize the National Guard.
This assertion drew skepticism from two Trump-appointed judges on the three-judge panel, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, who expressed concerns about the implications of such a bold claim.
Despite their skepticism, the panel did not indicate a willingness to lift the 9th Circuit’s stay on a temporary restraining order that had been issued against Trump’s unilateral deployment of the National Guard.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had previously sided with California Governor Gavin Newsom, ruling that Trump’s action was both illegal and unconstitutional.
The broader ramifications of this case are significant: if the court ultimately decides in favor of Governor Newsom’s argument, it would challenge the Trump administration’s stance that the president possesses limitless authority to deploy National Guard troops at his discretion, without adherence to statutory requirements or factual justifications.
Under 10 USC 12406, Trump invoked his authority to deploy the National Guard, citing three specific circumstances under which this action is justified.
These include scenarios where the United States faces invasion, rebellion, or when the president is unable to execute the laws using regular military forces.
The hearing primarily focused on Trump’s claim that the third condition had been met, leading Judge Bennett to question Shumate regarding the extent of judicial review in such decisions.
Surprisingly, Shumate affirmed the government’s stance that the courts have no role in evaluating the president’s judgment related to the mobilization of the National Guard.
He stated, “Our view is that the statute commits the decision whether to call up the forces to the president’s unreviewable discretion.”
Judge Bennett pushed back, suggesting that even if a president were to invoke the statute without providing valid reasons, the courts should still have some level of review.
Shumate maintained the view that judicial review was not applicable, asserting that if the statute is deemed unreviewable, then it remains so regardless of circumstances.
Even in hypothetical situations, such as a president articulating reasons outside the enumerated conditions of the statute, Shumate repeated his position: courts should not intervene in executive decisions under Section 12406.
This exchange raised serious questions about the separation of powers, particularly concerning the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the executive adheres to the law.
Judge Miller further probed this idea, asking what the phrase “unable with the regular forces” actually means within the context of the statute.
Shumate and California’s supervising deputy solicitor general Samuel Harbourt delved deeper into this theme during the remainder of the hearing, examining whether the president’s authority is truly as unbounded as the government contended.
Judge Breyer previously dismissed the administration’s argument, asserting that the presence of protests did not equate to the president being unable to enforce the laws effectively.
The government’s claim suggested that imminent danger justified the mobilization of the National Guard, as federal law enforcement faced substantial obstacles during the protests.
However, Breyer critiqued this assertion as “mere conjecture,” pointing out that the defendants failed to substantiate the need for federal intervention.
He declared, “The statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws.”
Shumate countered by insisting that, based on the president’s judgment, the situation required federal intervention due to violence.
Miller highlighted the ongoing issues federal law enforcement encounters, questioning whether any obstacle could lead the president to assert that he was unable to enforce federal law regularly.
While Shumate contended that the conditions presented were unique due to documented histories of violence, both Heather and Miller voiced concern over the implications of giving such expansive authority to the president.
In defense of their position, the judges pointed out that the president’s powers under Section 12406 must still comply with the limitations implied by its statutory framework.
Harbourt raised the potential consequences of the government’s arguments, noting how an unlimited interpretation of Section 12406 could allow the president to deploy the National Guard under virtually any circumstance.
As the hearing progressed, Bennett acknowledged that a similar Supreme Court decision in 1827 found that executive authority related to the militia was generally bestowed solely on the president in cases of emergency.
Harbourt contended that recent judicial interpretation and legal understanding have shifted, establishing a clearer need for judicial review in circumstances related to executive action.
He emphasized that the president should not unilaterally invoke the most extreme measures in hopes of overcoming obstacles faced by federal law enforcement.
The judges appeared divided on how to proceed, with uncertainty surrounding what precedents would support either side of the argument.
As the hearing concluded, speculation abounded regarding the eventual outcome.
It seems likely that the 9th Circuit will continue to uphold the temporary restraining order against Trump’s National Guard deployment while the case unfolds in the lower court.
Should a preliminary injunction be issued, the government will likely appeal—potentially escalating the matter to an en banc 11-judge panel of the appeals court and possibly the Supreme Court.
The ramifications of this legal battle extend far beyond California, as they sit atop the broader interpretation of presidential powers within the framework of U.S. law.
image source from：reason
