Analysis of California’s Legal Actions Against Federal Response

On a recent episode of “Hornity,” legal analyst Jonathan Turley commented on Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempts to challenge the Trump administration’s response to civil unrest in Los Angeles.

During the discussion, host Sean Hannity posed a question about the federal agents facing attacks and local law enforcement’s actions in a sanctuary state. He asked if Newsom should wait for there to be casualties or if he should proactively prevent federal buildings from being harmed.

Turley responded by stating that this is not an entirely new dilemma, emphasizing that the courts are not positioned to reevaluate such decisions. He referenced the principles established since the time of James Madison, noting that the judiciary does not have the authority to determine when the president can issue deployment orders. According to Turley, the president has the ability to federalize the National Guard under Title 10, which requires the governor’s consent or action.

He further elaborated that Congress has not intervened in this matter. The president acted on what he perceives as a threat, and the order is meant to go through the governor. Turley deemed California’s legal argument weak, noting that the Department of Justice’s submission was merely a response to efforts aimed at preventing the National Guard’s deployment. He concluded that the president holds this power, while California is taking a legal stance related to its self-identified enforcement actions, which it claims are being unlawfully challenged.