It seems rather predictable that a liberal judge from San Francisco would support California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, regarding authority over the National Guard, especially considering the ongoing anti-ICE protests that have escalated into riots and violence in Los Angeles.
The court session held on Thursday appeared to be more of a formality than anything substantive.
The 9th Circuit temporarily allows Trump’s team to retain control over the California State Guard.
A few hours later, District Judge Charles Breyer, appointed by Clinton and sibling of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued a predetermined ruling that hindered the deployment of a 4,000-member security force, which had managed to curb much of the unrest.
Shortly after, the 9th Circuit issued a temporary stay on Breyer’s ruling. So, we currently face a sort of legal impasse amid escalating protests. Future hearings will reveal whether the real power misuse is coming from the president or the judge.
According to legal precedents and historical context, Trump might have the stronger case. He acted promptly to protect lives and property, as indicated by various news reports.
Taking a moment to reflect, last weekend the chief of the LA police lamented publicly that the riot was spiraling out of control, with his officers feeling overwhelmed. He cautioned that “someone could easily get killed.”
Democrats are now grappling with the chaos they fervently defend. With rhetoric that has inflamed both ICE and Trump, they set the stage, ignited the spark, and now are seeing the chaos unfold.
In light of the rising violence, Newsom has either failed or chosen not to quell the mob attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers engaged in lawful operations. With threats to lives and federal property, President Trump has mobilized the National Guard to provide necessary protection and help restore order.
As conditions in LA worsened, the Secretary of Defense dispatched a group of U.S. Marines for additional support.
As anticipated, Newsom turned to a federal judge in San Francisco, seeking a temporary restraining order against the president—an engagement that has sparked a fierce debate between state and federal authorities.
It’s fundamentally the President’s duty to uphold laws, protect citizens, and ensure public safety. This obligation is grounded in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining the essential functions of the Chief Executive.
Federal judge directs Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to the governor
Historical legislation has granted the President significant power to curtail civil disorder aimed at enforcing federal law (10 USC 12406). Previous presidents, especially during civil rights struggles, have exercised these powers without seeking the governor’s approval.
Newsom lacks the authority to counteract the president’s commands. As the Department of Justice articulated in its brief to Judge Breyer, “there is no mob veto over federal law enforcement.”
Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the President possesses full authority to manage the California National Guard. Once activated, neither the governor nor the judge can assess whether such a critical decision is warranted. In situations threatening national security, the commander’s prerogative must be respected.
Only the President can determine the circumstances under which to deploy forces. DOJ attorneys reminded the judge, quoting directly from the statute, it pertains to “the danger of insurrection” or “the enforcement of U.S. law.”
Newsom argues that Trump needs his explicit consent to act. However, this stipulation is nowhere to be found in any legal texts. The law rather states a “President’s order” must be followed.
Newsom’s assertion that Trump cannot act under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement, is unfounded. The National Guard and Marines are primarily tasked with safeguarding federal property and personnel.
The President can invoke the Rebellion Act of 1807 whenever federal law enforcement encounters obstruction. He can do so without waiting for a judicial reversal, effectively counteracting any undermining by the governor. This law has been utilized during crises, the latest being the 1992 LA riots.
Claims of California’s sovereignty serve only to distract from the reality of the supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution, which positions federal law above state law. This includes concepts of sovereignty, which can be quite elastic in politics. However, it doesn’t negate the fact that federal statutes supersede conflicting state regulations.
Had the authorities acted responsibly when the protests began to show signs of violence, much of the ensuing chaos could have been averted. Instead, they clung to the narrative that the demonstrations were “almost peaceful”—a tired refrain reminiscent of rhetoric from the BLM riots in 2020.
Those on the left and their radical counterparts operate under the misguided belief that the public remains unaware of the rampant vandalism, looting, and violence occurring. They seem oblivious to the severity of arson, theft, property destruction, and bodily harm, instead minimizing these serious crimes to mere disturbances.
Obsessed with a disdain for Trump, political factions often inadequately assess their own role in enforcing laws, including the arrest and deportation of individuals here illegally, even those with serious criminal backgrounds.
In this way, Democrats are left owning the very chaos they ardently defend. Through inflammatory language targeting both ICE and Trump, they laid the groundwork for the current turmoil.
They prioritize sanctuary for illegal individuals over the safety of innocent citizens under siege, as well as the beleaguered law enforcement community. As the LA police chief warned, it seems they fail to grasp the reality that “someone could be killed easily.”
Newsom and his party seem disinclined to provide genuine solutions to the pandemonium shaking Los Angeles.
