California Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Monday that he is filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense, claiming the federalization of the California State Guard is “illegal.”
However, experts in law suggest Newsom’s case might not hold up, considering the president’s extensive powers over military matters.
Additionally, the lawsuit notes a historical precedent during the civil rights movement when the National Guard was federally mobilized to quell uprisings in the Democratic-controlled Jim Crow South.
Newsom’s action comes in reaction to Trump’s decision to deploy thousands of National Guard members despite the governor’s objections regarding the unrest following immigration enforcement activities in Los Angeles.
Democrats described the disturbances as “peaceful,” though I wonder about the disconnect there. Meanwhile, Trump’s directive to involve military forces escalated tensions between law enforcement and activist groups.
The lawsuit cites that Trump, as commander-in-chief, misused his authority under a statute mentioning that federal orders for state National Guard units should go through governors.
The complaint points out that local law enforcement wasn’t heeded, especially given California’s status as a “sanctuary state,” where cooperation with ICE is largely prohibited. It downplays the violence from protests and overlooks the fact that some demonstrators attacked police and vandalized property.
It mentions that in just a few days, there were severe disruptions and claims the current situation mirrors events from 1965 when federal troops were sent to protect civil rights protesters without gubernatorial consent. Yet, it doesn’t draw strong connections to the present scenario. It suggests that states led by Democrats are once again asserting federal authority over issues like immigration.
The lawsuit also fails to acknowledge other historical instances where the National Guard was federalized, like when President Dwight D. Eisenhower acted to ensure school integration in the South.
Newsom’s filing concludes that Trump’s actions are spreading fear across California. However, it overlooks the concern some residents have about public safety due to illegal activities.
In a statement, Newsom expressed:
Donald Trump has not adhered to the U.S. Constitution and has spread fear by overstepping his authority. This situation is a fabricated crisis intended to enable him to control the state militia and undermine our Republic. All governors, regardless of party, should stand against this excessive power grab. This isn’t just incompetence; it’s a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and instill fear in our communities, jeopardizing our democratic principles. This is a clear step toward authoritarianism. We cannot accept this.
It seems unlikely that Newsom will prevail legally. Some left-leaning legal scholars have even stated, “Unfortunately, President Trump has the legal authority to do this,” as noted by Jonathan Turley.
Turley explained that Trump has various federal powers at his disposal, which allow for mobilizing troops to maintain order during riots. He suggested that Democrats might struggle to label the unrest as “rebellion,” given their previous use of such terms against the January 6 incidents and the current political climate.
