DOJ Opposes Restraining Order Against Trump’s National Guard Activation

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the court to deny a request for a restraining order against the Trump administration concerning the deployment of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles. This decision follows a weekend marked by violent riots linked to actions by the city’s immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) officials.

Democratic leaders in California, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have accused President Trump of overstepping his authority by invoking Title 10, which allows the president to mobilize the National Guard during times of invasion or rebellion. Newsom stated that the deployment of troops was unnecessary and actually contributed to the unrest, claiming that local law enforcement was already handling the situation when Trump announced the National Guard activation.

With a hearing set for the next day, the DOJ defended Trump’s authority to deploy the National Guard in response to the chaos. They described Newsom’s actions as a political maneuver that could endanger lives, asserting that the President is responsible for protecting federal personnel and facilities under his command.

Since Friday, protests against ICE have escalated, resulting in damage to federal buildings and injuries to federal officials. The DOJ noted that local police were struggling to maintain order amidst the turmoil.

According to LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, the situation had spiraled out of control, expressing concerns that someone could easily be killed. The DOJ argued that recognizing the threats faced by federal law enforcement, the President acted appropriately by mobilizing forces to protect personnel and restore order.

Trump’s administration maintains that he has the constitutional right to call upon the National Guard and, if necessary, to use military forces to manage unlawful violence aimed at law enforcement efforts. However, instead of collaborating to restore order, Newsom filed a lawsuit aimed at restricting the federal government’s ability to safeguard its properties and officials.

The DOJ pointed out that California’s claims are baseless, emphasizing that the law does not require Trump to consult with Newsom prior to revitalizing the National Guard. They noted that communication is merely a procedural matter directed to the governor.

Historical precedents show that courts have typically refrained from intervening in military deployments, as seen during Eisenhower’s integration of schools and Nixon’s actions to ensure postal delivery.

In conclusion, the DOJ has advised the court to dismiss California and Newsom’s claims for restraining orders. Newsom’s office has yet to respond to inquiries regarding this matter.