President Donald Trump and Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom are set to resolve their dispute over the National Guard’s use in California in a three-day trial beginning this week. The case centers on Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard members during protests in Los Angeles in June, with arguments over whether the move was legal and whether it infringed on state authority. Government attorneys are set to argue that Trump had legal authority to deploy the National Guard to assist with anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests and riots, which have been a point of contention between the federal government and state authorities. Most of the National Guard members have since been demobilized, but the trial could set the stage for more fights across the country as Trump federalizes guard members in Washington, D.C., and threatens to do so elsewhere in response to high crime rates in blue cities.
Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee and brother of retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, is presiding over the case. Breyer initially granted a temporary restraining order in favor of Newsom, saying Trump’s decision to mobilize the National Guard was illegal because it infringed on California’s authority. One of the conditions required under the law Trump cited to federalize the National Guard is that a rebellion must be underway, and Breyer said the riots in California fell far short of that scenario. However, Breyer’s decision was quickly reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that courts have limited ability to review whether a president has properly invoked the law to federalize the National Guard.
The appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the courts must afford the president deference in such matters, stating that Trump likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under Section 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President is unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces. The panel paused Breyer’s initial order indefinitely, but Monday’s trial is the next step in the court process as the judge weighs the merits of the case. While little remains on the ground in California for the judge to resolve, legal questions surrounding Trump’s actions persist.
As part of the trial, Breyer will examine the 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from being used for civil matters. Newsom has argued that Trump violated this law and plans to call military officials as witnesses during the trial to testify about the directions the National Guard and a few hundred Marines received. Newsom has claimed that the Guard members were illegally engaged in law enforcement activities, while government attorneys argue they were protecting federal personnel and properties.
The trial will also address whether Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard without the governor’s consent was illegal. The appeals court panel found that while the law’s language, which states that Trump must go ‘through’ the governor, could mean the president committed a ‘procedural’ violation, it did not warrant restricting Trump’s use of the military. Newsom has argued that militarizing California was unnecessary and caused the unrest in Los Angeles to intensify. State and local law enforcement officers made about seven riot-related arrests prior to Trump’s announcement about the National Guard on June 7, but they made about a thousand arrests during the subsequent 10 days, according to California attorneys. An ICE official said in an affidavit that National Guard members were ‘essential’ to providing reinforcements around the 300 North Los Angeles Federal Building, which was the site of protests during the controversial immigration raids.
‘Prior to the National Guard’s deployment, rioters and protestors assaulted federal, state, and local law enforcement officers with rocks, fireworks, and other objects. They also damaged federal property by spray painting death threats to federal law enforcement officers,’ the ICE official wrote. The trial is expected to provide a comprehensive legal evaluation of the deployment and its impact on both state and federal powers. It may also set a precedent for similar cases involving the use of the National Guard in response to civil unrest across the country.