The Attorney Slams Gavin Newsom for Politicking Trump's National Guard Decision: A Waste of Court Resources
Trump secures victory over Newsom in dispute over National Guard command authority
Attorney Mehek Cooke weighs in on President Donald Trump's power to mobilize National Guard troops to manage chaos in Los Angeles and a judge extending a block on Trump's university ban for international students at Harvard.
On Thursday, in a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Trump was given the green light to control National Guard troops stationed in LA. The ruling put a hold on a lower court order that ordered the control to be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.
TRUMP MULLS MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN, DESPITE LEGAL CONCERNS PILING UP
Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard marks the first time a president has taken control of a state's National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965.
In the court filing, judges believed that the President had taken a lawful course of action.
"Granting the President that deference, we conclude it's likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President cannot effectively execute the laws of the United States with the regular forces," the court stated.
The court also disagreed with Governor Newsom's argument that the President's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is utterly exempt from judicial review.
*GET OUR APP NOW FOR UPDATES ON THIS STORY*
Despite Trump not informing Newsom before deploying the National Guard as legally required, the court stated that Newsom had no power to veto the President's order.
This is an evolving situation. Stay tuned for further developments.
Legal Breakdown
The President's decision to mobilize National Guard troops without Newsom's approval has sparked heated debates centered on constitutional power, federal statutes, and the balance of state versus federal control.
- Consent Requirement: The U.S. Constitution and Title 10 of the U.S. Code typically demand the governor's consent for the President to federalize the National Guard. Newsom asserted that he had withheld his consent before the deployment, suggesting that the President's order violated this requirement and encroached on the governor's role as commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard forces[1].
- Use of Title 10 and Federalization Authority: Trump invoked a rarely utilized statute under Title 10, allowing federalization when the President claims there's a rebellion or regular forces are insufficient to enforce federal laws. The President's unprecedented move to federalize a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965[2][4] was justified by the federal courts, indicating a legal interpretation that allows the President to invoke this authority under specific circumstances[2][4].
- Legal Challenge and Court Proceedings: California filed a lawsuit contesting the legality of the President's order, arguing it violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from civilian law enforcement without Congressional authorization. The courts upheld the President's use of Title 10 authority, but the legal tussle persists[2][4].
- Implications for State Sovereignty and Command Authority: Newsom and California officials argue that the President's unilateral action undermines state sovereignty by denying the governor control over the National Guard. This raises broader constitutional questions about the extent of presidential authority over state military forces.
- Potential Posse Comitatus Act Concerns: California suggests that deploying the National Guard under federal control for law enforcement purposes in Los Angeles may violate this law. However, a federal judge has postponed ruling on this issue until further examination[2].
Takeaway
- California views the President’s federalization of the National Guard without Governor Newsom's consent as a violation of constitutional and federal law, infringing on state control over its military forces[1].
- The federal government justifies the action under Title 10 authority, citing the necessity to respond to an alleged rebellion, and the inability of regular forces to enforce laws[3][4].
- Courts have so far supported the President in retaining control over the troops, but the legality remains contested and subject to ongoing litigation[2][4].
- The situation raises significant questions regarding federalism, the limits of presidential power, and the application of laws like the Posse Comitatus Act in domestic military deployments[1][2][4].
In summary, President Trump's unilateral federalization of the National Guard in California without the governor's permission creates a significant legal controversy involving constitutional authority, state sovereignty, and federal military law enforcement powers. The courts are actively addressing these issues, but no definitive resolution has yet settled the constitutional dispute.
In the context of the unfolding situation, the President's decision to mobilize the National Guard without Gavin Newsom's approval has led to contentious discussions on state versus federal control, which can be linked to politics and general news. Moreover, the President's potential military action towards Iran and the ongoing legal challenges around the Posse Comitatus Act show connections between politics, war-and-conflicts, policy-and-legislation, and general news.
