This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/newsom-restraining-order-trump-troops-los-angeles

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judge to consider California’s request for restraining order against Trump over use of troops in LA Judge to consider California’s request for restraining order against Trump over use of troops in LA
(about 11 hours later)
Gavin Newsom filed suit challenging president’s move to call up troops to suppress protests against Ice raids California governor Gavin Newsom filed suit challenging US president calling up troops to suppress protests against Ice
LA protests – live updatesLA protests – live updates
A federal judge on Thursday is expected to hear arguments over the request of the California governor, Gavin Newsom, for a temporary restraining order to block Donald Trump from deploying national guard troops and marines to suppress protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. A federal judge expressed skepticism on Thursday with the Trump administration’s arguments that the president has the power to federalize national guard troops and deploy them to suppress protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles.
The hearing, set for 4.30pm ET in federal district court in San Francisco, comes after the presiding judge, Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, earlier declined to grant an immediate injunction against the administration. The US district judge, Charles Breyer, said he intends to rule on California’s request for an injunction halting the deployment “very soon”, and that he was hopeful his ruling would come by the end of the day. He said he would also decide on whether the justice department could stay the order pending appeal.
The request for the restraining order is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump’s move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based in Twentynine Palms California over Newsom’s objections. The justice department argued at a roughly hourlong hearing that under the Title 10 statute invoked by Trump, the US president had the power to decide whether the protests had escalated and required the national guard to quell a “rebellion or a danger of rebellion”.
The complaint is largely aimed at the legitimacy of Trump’s order. It sought a judicial declaration to nullify the order and to make clear that it was unlawful for the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to bypass Newsom in federalizing the state’s national guard forces in this instance. But Breyer said that the statute was not structured in a way that suggested Trump would have the power to be the sole determiner of whether such conditions had been met.
The hearing is expected to focus on the Title 10 statute invoked by Trump, which allows the president to federalize the national guard if there is a “rebellion or a danger of rebellion”, or if the president is “unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States”. “If the president had complete discretion, why wouldn’t it say: ‘Whenever the president thought’ or ‘if the president agrees’ or ‘in the sole discretion of the president, he finds one, two and three’,” Breyer said to the justice department. “They don’t say any of that.”
Although pockets of protests turned violent – some threw rocks at law enforcement vehicles and set alight a series of driverless Waymo cars – local authorities in Los Angeles county did not say they needed federal assistance. Although the protests have generally been peaceful with the exceptions of pockets that turned violent, the justice department contended Trump’s absolute discretion meant his underlying basis for his decisions could not be reviewed by federal courts.
The California attorney general, Rob Bonta, is expected to argue that Trump needed Newsom’s approval or request for such a mobilization, and that there was no basis to bring in national guard forces because the protests did not rise to the level of a rebellion. The judge appeared particularly incredulous at the notion there could be no judicial review. “If the president finds there to be a rebellion, then it is a rebellion,” Breyer said with his voice sharply rising in intonation. “How is that any different to what a monarchist does?”
But the Trump administration has suggested that the decision of whether to federalize the national guard was at the discretion of the president, and that federal courts cannot second-guess decisions by the executive branch as to whether the military was needed. The lawyer for the California governor, Gavin Newsom, who filed the request for an injunction, argued mobilizing the guard was a power delegated by Congress – meaning it was not an inherent power of the president that made his decisions unreviewable.
In its 29-page response to the lawsuit, the justice department also said Newsom was misrepresenting the situation because the military was always only going to be used in a protective function and not to perform law enforcement functions. “They are saying that the president, by fiat, can federalize the national guard and deploy it in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives that there is disobedience to an order,” Nicholas Green told the judge.
The justice department cited memos from the office of legal counsel, written by William Rehnquist before he became chief justice of the United States, which suggested the military could be used to protect federal buildings from anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war. The request for the injunction is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump’s move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based in Twentynine Palms, California, over Newsom’s objections.
The memos envisioned the president relying upon his inherent authority in the US constitution as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possibly to get around the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it illegal for the military to perform a law enforcement function on domestic soil unless the president has invoked the Insurrection Act, which Trump has not. The memos have never been legally tested in court. The complaint argued there was no basis to call in the national guard because the protests did not rise to the level of rebellion, and that the Trump administration did not satisfy the procedural requirement to consult with the governor to federalize the state’s national guard.
Sign up to This Week in TrumplandSign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administrationA deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
The justice department also contended that the Trump administration had complied with the statute in full with respect to the governor’s putative role, because it had notified Newsom of Trump’s intentions to deploy the national guard and marines before they were implemented. The justice department said they interpreted the statute to mean Trump’s order had to be logistically “passed through” the governor and that in this case, it had notified the adjutant general of the California national guard, to which Newsom had delegated authority.
Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish the protesters more aggressively.Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish the protesters more aggressively.
Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” he said of the president’s usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. “The next time, I’m not waiting.”Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” he said of the president’s usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. “The next time, I’m not waiting.”