President Donald Trump’s legal team has argued that he has no obligation to consult California Governor Gavin Newsom before federalizing National Guard troops to address anti-ICE protests, framing the state’s lawsuit as a political stunt. The Justice Department defended Trump’s actions, stating that the president has the legal authority under the 1870 law, which enables the president to deploy the National Guard during rebellion or insurrection. The case is set for court consideration on Friday.
The legal battle centers on whether Trump, as commander in chief, can deploy the National Guard without the consent of a state governor. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s actions were both inappropriate and illegal, as the state has dual control over the National Guard. The judge initially denied the state’s request for a temporary restraining order, allowing both parties to proceed to court for further consideration.
The case is framed around 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which grants the president the power to deploy the National Guard in the event of rebellion or insurrection. However, Newsom’s legal team argues that the protests, while significant, do not meet the threshold of rebellion required to justify federal intervention. Meanwhile, a group of 26 Republican state attorneys general filed an amicus brief supporting Trump, calling the protests a result of leadership that excuses lawlessness.
The situation highlights the tension between federal authority and state governance in handling domestic unrest. As the case approaches its next court date, the legal and political ramifications of Trump’s actions remain under scrutiny.