9th Circuit Court Backs Trump’s Authority Over California State Guard
A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously decided that President Trump has the authority to federate the California State Guard, sidelining Governor Gavin Newsom’s objections.
This development follows Trump’s earlier decision to mobilize security personnel, deploying them to address the unrest in Los Angeles. Some media outlets and Democrats criticized this move as “illegal,” claiming it stepped beyond his authority.
In the court’s opinion, which appeared on page 38 of the document, the judges—two appointees of Trump and one of Biden—found that Trump is likely to prevail in the case, thereby extending the temporary restraining order set by the lower court.
The judges emphasized that while they couldn’t firmly reaffirm Trump’s authority over the National Guard, they felt it necessary to delay a decision based on existing legal precedent. They also dismissed Newsom’s primary argument that Trump hadn’t consulted the governor’s office, stating that Trump indeed fulfilled his obligation by keeping Newsom informed. Even if critics were right, this didn’t undermine Trump’s authority.
The court elaborated:
The defendants demonstrated enough strength to suggest they are likely to succeed in their appeal. We disagree with the primary contention that the president’s decision to federate members of the California State Guard under 10 USC §12406 is completely outside judicial review. However, we believe that any review must remain modest, according to long-established precedents regarding this statute. Acknowledging the President’s authority, we conclude that it is probable he has legally executed his statutory powers under §12406(3), particularly when it comes to federalizing the National Guard in circumstances where he cannot enforce U.S. laws. The transfer of the Secretary of Defense’s orders to a California National Guard deputy aligns with state law requirements for “issuance of all orders in the name of the governor.” Furthermore, even if a procedural lapse occurred, it does not warrant the extent of relief granted by the District Court’s restraining order. This ruling also addresses the parties’ agreement regarding the 10th Amendment Request.
Other considerations, such as potential unfair harm to the defendant, injury to the plaintiff, and public interest, seem to lean in favor of the defendant.
Even if the defendant was found to have not entirely followed the procedural guidelines of §12406, Newsom lacks the power to reject or counter the President’s orders. So, it appears that Trump is likely to prevail in this matter, as it doesn’t infringe on his authority under §12406 nor does it rationalize the existing injunction imposed by the district court.
On the other hand, plaintiffs argue that maintaining a National Guard presence in Los Angeles would ease tensions rather than exacerbate them. They also contend that federalizing the National Guard could hinder essential national functions. However, these arguments didn’t outweigh the significant evidence presented, which indicated federal property was damaged and federal personnel sustained injuries during the unrest.
Governor Newsom remains steadfast in labeling Trump’s federalization of the National Guard as “illegal.” Moving forward, it’s possible that a full bench of the 9th Circuit or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will need to address this issue.
