In a significant judicial development, a federal judge has mandated the cessation of the Trump administration’s six-month control over the California National Guard. This intervention was based on the grounds that the deployment lacked adequate legal foundation, as reported in JURIST.
The legal provision at the heart of this issue, 10 USC § 12406, allows for the federalization of National Guard troops only under conditions of national emergency, such as invasion or rebellion, or when the execution of federal laws is at stake. President Donald Trump invoked this authority in June amid widespread protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, moving forward despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. Remarkably, it was the first occurrence of the law being enacted over a state governor’s objection.
The administration’s decision was swiftly challenged by Governor Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who initiated legal action immediately following the troop deployment. Although US District Judge Charles Breyer initially issued a temporary restraining order, the Ninth Circuit stayed this order, adding complexity to an ongoing legal dispute that remains unresolved.
Originally, 4,000 California National Guard members were federalized, with the number reduced over the summer, leaving approximately 300 troops still active under federal status. Subsequent legal rulings led to some of these troops being transferred to Oregon after similar federalization efforts encountered judicial barriers there.
Judge Breyer’s recent decision to grant a preliminary injunction demands that control of the remaining Guard members be reverted to state authority, setting a deadline for government compliance while allowing room for appeal. He criticized the administration’s rationale, emphasizing the dangers of defining peaceful protestors as threats necessitating military intervention and highlighting the potential implications for First Amendment rights.
Governor Newsom welcomed the ruling, affirming the illegality of the federalization while highlighting the disruption caused to essential public safety operations. He expressed eagerness to see the National Guard members returned to state duties.
Breyer’s ruling marks another legal setback in the broader context of the administration’s National Guard deployments. Parallel judgments in other states, such as Oregon and Illinois, have mirrored this decision, with the Illinois case advancing to the Supreme Court, adding a layer of national scrutiny to these legal challenges.