California Governor Gavin Newsom has launched a legal salvo against President Donald Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to quell riots in Los Angeles, and it’s already hitting turbulence.
The Daily Caller reported that Newsom, a prominent Democrat, filed suit to block Trump’s move to stabilize Los Angeles amid violent unrest, arguing the president overstepped his bounds.
District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, dropped a 36-page bombshell on Thursday night, ruling that Trump’s actions were “illegal” and trampled on the Tenth Amendment.
But before Newsom could pop the champagne, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hit pause on Breyer’s decision, ensuring the National Guard stays put in LA until at least the next hearing on Tuesday.
Trump’s justification rests on a federal statute allowing the president to federalize the Guard during rebellions or foreign threats, though the vague wording left Breyer to interpret—and reject—its application here.
Legal minds aren’t buying Newsom’s odds on appeal, with many pointing to the shaky ground of Breyer’s reasoning. South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman noted the president “will receive deference” in security matters.
Blackman didn’t hold back, adding, “I think the court reached out to decide some novel and complex constitutional questions on an expedited basis,” predicting the ruling won’t survive higher scrutiny. Talk about a judicial overreach alert!
Former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno echoed the skepticism, calling Breyer’s process critique a “harmless error” at best, hardly enough to invalidate a presidential deployment. He quipped that an “unelected federal judge” shouldn’t be second-guessing the Commander in Chief’s sacred duties.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith piled on, labeling the opinion “slapdash” and criticizing Breyer for being “very selective” in defining rebellion. If that’s not a polite slap on the wrist, what is?
Goldsmith also urged higher courts to “act more soberly,” hinting that the Supreme Court would likely take a dim view of this judicial freelancing.
Meanwhile, hundreds of Marines have already rolled into Los Angeles, as confirmed by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, showing Trump isn’t waiting for the gavel to drop to secure the streets.
Even if Newsom’s challenge temporarily stalls the Guard’s role, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley emphasized that Trump has “ample authority” to deploy federal personnel to protect key assets. That’s a reminder of who holds the cards in a crisis.
Commentators like Chad Mizelle have taken to social media, blasting “activist judges” for meddling with Trump’s clear mandate to maintain order.
While the frustration is palpable, it’s worth noting Newsom’s genuine concern for state autonomy, even if his legal footing seems wobbly.
In the end, this legal skirmish may be less about Los Angeles and more about the broader tug-of-war between state and federal power—a debate as old as the Constitution itself.
But with expert consensus leaning heavily against Newsom’s case, Trump’s authority might just weather this storm, proving once again that challenging the president on security matters is a steep climb.