Governor Newsom’s Legal Battle over National Guard Troops
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent victory was short-lived after an appeals court intervened. Just hours after a favorable ruling, the situation took a turn that was unexpected.
Newsom had taken legal action against the Trump administration, challenging the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to address riots in Los Angeles. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sided with Newsom, stating that the president’s actions were unconstitutional.
Breyer remarked, “Obviously, there is no invasion, no rebellion. That’s ridiculous.”
In a press conference, Newsom expressed frustration towards President Trump and celebrated the court’s decision, emphasizing, “The court has ruled. The guards will return to my command, and Trump’s control will end tomorrow at noon.”
This moment was brief; shortly after, the Trump administration appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, resulting in an emergency order reinstating presidential control over the National Guard. Trump, still in office at the time, tweeted about the appeal, suggesting that without the troop presence, chaos would have ensued.
Critics of the administration argue that the unrest in Los Angeles did not warrant military intervention, with Newsom reiterating, “There’s clearly no invasion, no rebellion.”
Breyer echoed these sentiments, asserting that the president had violated the 10th Amendment and unlawfully taken control during what was deemed an emergency. He concluded that the president had overstepped his legal authority and must return control to California’s governor.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta voiced concerns over the president’s motives, stating that using military force to suppress dissent is not only immoral but also illegal and dangerous. “Local law enforcement, not the military, should manage law enforcement within our borders,” Bonta remarked.
Judge Breyer, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, is notably related to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
