Los Angeles, California — The state of California is taking legal action against President Donald Trump over his recent deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. Announced on Monday, the lawsuit filed by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta seeks to overturn Trump’s order, which involved sending 2,000 state National Guard members to the city amid protests related to immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit asserts that Trump exceeded his legal authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code when he invoked this provision, which permits the federal government to call National Guard troops into service during times of “rebellion or danger of rebellion.” It claims Trump’s use of this authority is not justified, particularly as additional troops were deployed without the consent of local law enforcement or the governor himself.
In a press release, Bonta stated, “Let me be clear: There is no invasion. The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends.” The attorney general criticized Trump’s decision to federalize California’s National Guard as an infringement on state authority and an abuse of presidential power.
The legal filing also argues that Section 12406 stipulates a governor’s consent is required for the federalization of the National Guard, emphasizing that orders should be issued through state governors. Additionally, it contends that Trump’s order violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain rights and powers for states and their citizens unless explicitly delegated to the federal government.
The deployment order has sparked debate among legal scholars regarding its legitimacy. Experts are questioning whether the protests, sparked by immigration raids, constitute a rebellion that necessitates federal intervention. They suggest that the legal framework for such a deployment is murky, particularly in light of the requirement for gubernatorial consent.
Compounding the legal complexities, Trump’s order referenced the authority granted to him by the Constitution, suggesting he believes he holds inherent powers to deploy National Guard troops domestically. This notion of inherent presidential power, however, lacks definitive judicial precedent, leaving the current situation open to interpretation.
Another contentious issue is Trump’s decision to invoke Section 12406 without altogether citing the Insurrection Act, which allows federal troops to aid in civil law enforcement to quell armed rebellions. By not invoking the Insurrection Act, experts point out that National Guard troops deployed under Section 12406 are restricted in their capabilities, limited primarily to providing logistical support and protection for federal personnel.
Historical context reveals that previous presidents, such as George H.W. Bush in 1992, have invoked both Section 12406 and the Insurrection Act in response to civil unrest, but Bush did so at the request of the state’s governor—a factor absent in the current deployment. The last instance of federal action under Section 12406 without gubernatorial consent occurred in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson dispatched troops to Alabama for civil rights demonstrations.
As California moves forward with its lawsuit, the outcome may set important precedents regarding the extent of presidential powers and the legal boundaries surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops during national crises.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and while it aims to provide accurate information, the facts, people, and circumstances may be subject to inaccuracies. Requests for corrections or retractions can be made by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.