OAKLAND – A coalition of organizations and individuals from across the United States has filed amicus briefs in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, backing California’s legal challenge against what they deem the Trump Administration’s unlawful federalization of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
This challenge follows a temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which deemed the federalization order illegal and restored control of the National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed that ruling as the appeal process unfolds.
Among the notable supporters is a bipartisan coalition of former governors who collectively bring 178 years of experience serving as chief executives and commanders-in-chief of their state’s National Guard. They expressed clear concerns regarding the federalization move by stating that it disrupts the constitutional balance between state and federal authority, undermines state leaders’ capacity to manage law enforcement within their jurisdictions, and deprives states of essential tools for emergency response.
The California State Legislature echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that evidence indicates the regular military forces were adequately equipped to uphold the federal government’s ability to implement its laws. In their view, President Donald Trump’s decision to transform the California National Guard into a federal force exceeded the authority Congress provided.
They further asserted that the state has experienced tangible injuries since the federalization took place.
Specifically, they highlighted a 57 percent decline in fentanyl seizures by CalGuard’s Counterdrug Task Force along the border, which they attribute to the unavailability of Taskforce Rattlesnake personnel who mitigate fire risk and other emergencies.
The Chamberlain Network, a group of veterans advocating against military polarization, also voiced their positions, asserting that servicemembers are called to serve their fellow Americans, not to act as enforcers against civilians who pose no threat.
Veterans, military families, and retired high-ranking military officers represented by the VetVoice Foundation warned that yielding too much power to the executive branch on these matters can negatively impact military morale and the trust within military communities. They also remarked that this could tarnish the military’s reputation, which is vital for ensuring its effectiveness.
A coalition of 21 attorneys general, including Kansas’ governor, joined the fray, arguing that the President’s action to summon troops without an imminent threat undermines the rule of law and disregards the founding principles of American governance.
They declared that President Trump’s unilateral deployment of the National Guard in the absence of an invasion or rebellion challenges the vision laid forth by the Founders and risks infringing on constitutional rights across the nation.
Additionally, a group of cities and counties, including Los Angeles, criticized what they characterize as a systematic and unlawful use of federalized National Guard forces for immigration operations and domestic law enforcement.
They asserted that Los Angeles has been a test case for this troubling trend and that the President’s recent intentions to send troops to other cities, without justifiable causes, appears to undermine fundamental American values.
Local government leaders have also expressed their concerns regarding the military presence on the streets, indicating that it fuels tensions, disrupts local law enforcement operations, and leads to the potential for misunderstandings and increased violence.
Importantly, 21 sitting U.S. Senators have raised alarms about the potential implications of President Trump’s actions, framing the situation as a significant test of the limits of presidential power concerning domestic military deployments.
This unfolding situation raises essential questions regarding the balance of power and the role of the military within civilian domains, as the appeal process continues in the courts.
image source from：oag
