Trump lawyers double down on California troop deployment, authority, in new filing

The ongoing legal battle between the Trump administration and California Governor Gavin Newsom over the federalization of the National Guard has intensified, with the Justice Department asserting the president’s authority to call up troops in the state without the governor’s consent. The administration slammed Newsom’s emergency lawsuit as a “crass political stunt” that could put American lives at risk.

The crux of the issue lies in whether President Trump, as commander in chief, has the power to federalize the National Guard against a governor’s wishes. Both sides are set to appear in court on Friday as a judge considers California’s request for injunctive relief. The administration argued in a new court filing that Trump has no obligation to consult with or notify Newsom before federalizing the National Guard.

The lawyers for the administration emphasized that granting the relief California seeks would essentially countermand the president’s military directives and set a dangerous precedent. They argued that Trump’s actions were lawful under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to deploy the National Guard in cases of rebellion or danger to the U.S. government.

However, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have taken a firm stance against Trump’s actions, filing a lawsuit alleging that the president’s move was unlawful and unauthorized. The state argued that the immigration protests did not constitute a rebellion, as required by the law invoked by Trump.

Despite the judge’s denial of a temporary restraining order, the parties are set to meet in court to address California’s broader request for injunctive relief. The legal battle has garnered support from a group of 26 Republican state attorneys general, who backed Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard in response to the ICE protests in California.

As the legal showdown continues, the implications of Trump’s authority to federalize the National Guard without a governor’s consent remain a point of contention. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between federal and state governments in matters of national security and law enforcement. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.