"Mom!! Tell Donald To Give Me My Army Men Back!!" -- Gov. Newsom Sues Trump Administration Over National Guard

The Complaint seems lacking in seriousness as it inaccurately recites objective facts, implies statutory language that does not exist, and ignores statutory language that does exist.

This is a bit of a quick-hitter on the Complaint filed late in the afternoon on Monday by California over the Trump Administration decision to federalize the California National Guard and send them to Los Angeles to deal with the violence in the streets.

As I noted in a post on X, the Attorney General has opted to file in the San Francisco Division of the Northern District of California even though the State Capitol — Sacramento — is in the Eastern District, and the troops are being deployed to Los Angeles in the Central District. The justification for filing in San Francisco? "

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the California Attorney General and the State of California have offices at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California and at 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, California, and therefore reside in this district….”

Generally a business can file a federal case in any district where it does business. I’m not confident the same applies to a state government agency, but we will see soon enough.

The Complaint is only 22 pages long — not surprising given that it has been filed only 48 hours after President Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 12406 to call the California National Guard into federal service, and 24 hours after Newsom issued a letter objecting to the manner in which that happened.

I am not an expert on this subject by any means so if you know more about it than I do feel free to correct me in the comments. A State’s National Guard is a military force belonging to the state unless called to active duty by the President. Upon doing so the National Guard unit becomes part of the Army Reserve, which is part of the Department of Defense, and command authority is transferred from the State Commandant to the United States Secretary of the Defense, who takes his orders from the President.

The National Guard are defined under federal law — 10 U.S.C. Sec. 246(b)(1) — as the “organized militia,” one component of the “militia of the United States.” So there is no construction of any statutory law that holds that a State’s National Guard is off-limits to the President, or that calling it into federal service pursuant to a statute is an infringement on state sovereignty or some other state right.

The Complaint starts — as is the stupid modern trend in federal court — with pages and pages of stupid factual allegations that serve no real purpose, several of which are based on “reporting” or other references to new reports.

Normally this might just be trivial and inane, but the Newsom Administration doubles-down on that by make many factual claims that are objectively false — and others that don’t advance their cause:

Here are just a few examples:

During the course of these operations, ICE and its agents reportedly took actions that inflamed tensions and provoked protest. On information and belief, agents engaged in military-style operations while conducting these detentions and arrests that sparked panic in the community.

Entirely lawful law enforcement operations to enforce federal law provoke criminal activity — how does this help Newsom?

While not unified in their views or tactics, most protesters seem to have gathered to express their opposition to the manner in which the Trump Administration has executed its immigration agenda….

How does the Attorney General know this to be the case? “Most protesters seem…” That is not a factual allegation that belongs in federal civil complaint.

Most of those involved in protesting have been exercising their rights under the First Amendment in a peaceful, non-violent, and legally compliant manner.

“Most” requires the conclusion that some were not protesting in a peaceful and non-violent manner — hence the need for a law enforcement presence to protect the DHS personnel enforcing the law.

At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection.

That’s nice but the language of the statute also covers the “danger of a rebellion” against the Government.

Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years.

Get it? Angelenos and other Californians — Democrats — have a tolerance for lawbreaking and property destruction. They aren’t ready to squeal like a pig just yet.

LAPD and LASD have been responding promptly, professionally, and effectively to the events unfolding in the City and County. Officers from both Departments have been on the ground, actively enforcing the law, issuing and enforcing orders to disperse, and protecting public safety and property as well as federal personnel.

Enough said.

The LAPD issued a statement that night [Sat. June 7] that “demonstrations across the City of Los Angeles remained peaceful,” and commended those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly.

Does a court believe Newsom or his own eyes watching events on TV?

But here is the good one:

43. LASD positioned its officers around the intersection of Alondra Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue, and deployed less-lethal weapons.

44. At approximately 4:00 p.m., LASD declared an unlawful assembly and instructed individuals to leave the area or be arrested. Officers shot tear gas canisters into the crowd and protesters retreated.

45. By 7:00 p.m., approximately 100 protesters had gathered on the other side of the 710 Freeway near Atlantic Avenue and Alondra Boulevard.

46. At about 9:30 p.m. a line of LASD deputies and vehicles began moving toward the crowd, forcing them back, and by midnight, most of demonstrators began to leave.

Unlawful assembly declared at 4:00 pm, and by midnight most began to leave.

Good thing — LA Mayor Bass was beginning to run out of patience.

What I don’t see anywhere in the text of the Complaint is a claim that DHS and other federal law enforcement personnel were able to enforce federal law without interference by protesters.

That’s sort of the point of the statutory authority relied upon by President Trump.

In my article earlier today I went through the language of the statute that Pres. Trump cited in his White House Statement exercising his authority to send in the National Guard. Here is a screen shot of the relatively brief statute:

You can ignore (1), and for the most part ignore (2) — although the White House Statement does make reference to a “rebellion.” The action under the statute for purposes of what is happening in Los Angeles really turns on (3).

ICE and other federal law enforcement are unable to execute the laws of the United States. There is no “reasonableness” standard or “objective” test for this language — it is a judgment given to the President to make.

At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard.

Nowhere in the language of this statute is there a reference to “approval” or “concurrence” by a Governor. Yet in the California complaint, Newsom claims all three are somehow involved in a President’s decision call the NG into federal service in order to execute federal laws within the state.

The Adjutant General subsequently shared the DOD Order with the Governor’s Office; however, at no time did the Governor or his Office provide consent to the mobilization or issue orders through the Governor mobilizing the Guard members.

Again the Complaint inserts a step not set forth by Congress in the statute — and it makes sense that it would not. California’s reading of the statute would introduce the idea that the President cannot enforce federal law within a state without the “consent” of the state’s Governor. That would be the interpretation if, under the statute, after determining that “regular forces” are unable to execute federal law, the President was required to obtain the consent of a Governor in order to deploy sufficient forces to do so.

On June 8, the Governor’s Office sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth objecting to the federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles and requesting that DOD rescind its order.

Again, the Complaint assumes that an “objection” by a Governor to the President’s exercise of authority under the statute has some significance to the question of the lawfulness of such an exercise. Nothing in the statute says that is so.

Pres. Eisenhower settled that question in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 when he sent the Arkansas National Guard, backed up by 1000 Troopers from the 101st Airborne Division, over the objection of the Arkansas Governor, to integrate Central Union High School in compliance with Brown v. Board of Eduction.

Defendants’ actions unlawfully activating 4,000 California National Guard members into federal service directly infringes on Governor Newsom’s proper role of Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard. Cal. Const. art. V, § 7; U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 8, cls. 15-16; amend. X. Except when the State’s militia has been lawfully called into federal service, the Governor maintains command and control of the militia.

California isn’t the Republic of Texas, and Los Angeles isn’t the Alamo. The way the Supremacy Clause works is that if the federal government needs to make use of state assets to enforce federal law, it gets to do so. How that impacts the state for other purposes is a consideration the President should take into account out of prudence, but it is not a question about which a court can intervene to substitute its own judgment.

Pages 14-15 of the Complaint detail the other types of disasters or emergencies that these NG troops will now be unavailable to attend to — if needed — because they have been placed in federal service. This portion of the Complaint is nearly comedic as it describes conditions in California that are, in significant ways, the product of Newsom Administration policies and the polices of Democrat Governors who preceded him.

This is only the second time in our nation’s history that a President has relied on the exclusive authority of this provision to federalize the National Guard.

Maybe that’s because at no other time in our history has the Democrat party sought to completely remake the population/electorate of the United States by abandoning the concept of a national border and allowing 20+ million plus illegal aliens to enter the country and take up residence.

Responding to such an unprecedented crisis requires resort to authorities that were never before needed. Unfortunately for the Democrat party they have run into a Republican President more than willing to reach into the tool box given to him by Congress to fix the problem.