Appeals Court Holds Pres. Trump Controls The California National Guard -- But District Judge Might Still Have Other Ideas

Civil Procedure and "Causes of Action" explain what has happened and what might yet happen still.

I have written two articles already on the issue of President Trump’s federalizing of the California National Guard in response to the the violent protests of ICE activity in Los Angeles. My first article covered his invocation of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 12406 as a basis for doing so — and distinguishing that from what additional authority he could have drawn from the invocation of the Insurrection Act.

My second article addressed the lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in response to Pres. Trump federalizing the National Guard. But that article was written prior to the hearing in the District Court on the requested Temporary Restraining Order — granted — and the proceedings that followed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal — staying the TRO.

To recap those proceedings, Newsom sought a TRO based on the claim that the President’s Order invoking his authority under Sec. 12406 was legally defective based on a few different legal claims. In civil litigation those claims are called “Causes of Action.” Usually each such Cause of Action are independent of each other but sometimes they are related. One of the Causes of Action in Newsom’s complaint was connected to another — meaning if the first was determined to be insufficient, the second was as well.

Newsom’s complaint set forth three Causes of Action:

1. Ultra Vires — meaning Pres. Trump’s action was unlawful standing alone.

2. Violation of Tenth Amendment — powers reserved to the States.

3. Violation of Administrative Procedures Act.