Newsom v. Trump
FOR PUBLICATION (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Judicial review of the President's determination that a statutory predicate exists to federalize the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is highly deferential and requires only that the President's decision reflect a colorable assessment of the facts and law.
Facts:
- On June 6, 2025, protesters in Los Angeles threw objects at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicles to prevent their operation.
- Later that day, protesters assaulted Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers with concrete chunks and bottles at a federal building and used a dumpster as a battering ram.
- The following day, protesters continued to interfere with federal law enforcement, throwing fireworks and a Molotov cocktail at officers, damaging federal property, and trapping an officer in her vehicle.
- In response, on June 7, President Trump issued a memorandum invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to call 2,000 members of the California National Guard into federal service to protect federal personnel and property.
- The Secretary of Defense transmitted the President's order to California's Adjutant General via a memorandum addressed 'Through: The Governor of California.'
- Over the next two days, violent protests continued, including vandalism of a Federal Courthouse and an attack on a federal van carrying officers and non-citizens.
- On June 9, the Secretary of Defense issued a second memorandum calling an additional 2,000 California National Guard members into federal service.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of California and Governor Newsom sued President Trump and the Department of Defense in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Plaintiffs alleged the federalization of the California National Guard was ultra vires (beyond legal authority) and violated the Tenth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs moved the district court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the deployment.
- After a hearing, the district court granted the TRO, enjoining the deployment of the National Guard and ordering control returned to the Governor.
- Defendants, as appellants, immediately appealed the TRO to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed an emergency motion to stay the TRO pending the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President's order to federalize the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, in response to violent protests against federal immigration enforcement, exceed his statutory authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The President's decision to federalize the National Guard is subject to a highly deferential standard of judicial review, and based on the evidence of violent protests impeding federal law enforcement, the President likely acted within his statutory authority. The court's review of the President's determination that a statutory predicate exists is not precluded by the political question doctrine, as the authority stems from a statute, not inherent constitutional power. However, longstanding precedent established in Martin v. Mott, which interpreted a precursor to § 12406, requires courts to afford great deference to the President's judgment that an exigency has arisen. The court may only review the determination to ensure it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and was made in good faith. Here, evidence of violent protests that injured federal officers, damaged federal property, and significantly impeded the execution of federal laws provides a colorable basis for the President's determination that he was 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States' under § 12406(3). Furthermore, the procedural requirement that the order be issued 'through the governor' was likely satisfied by transmitting it to the Adjutant General, who is authorized by state law to issue orders in the Governor's name. Even if this were a procedural error, it would not justify the broad injunction granted, as the statute provides the Governor no veto power over the President's decision.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the substantial deference courts afford the executive branch in matters of national security and emergency response, even when the actions are domestic. By applying the nearly 200-year-old precedent of Martin v. Mott to a modern statute, the court signals that it will be highly reluctant to second-guess the President's factual determination that an exigency exists to federalize a state's National Guard. The ruling clarifies that while the President's decision is not entirely unreviewable as a political question, the scope of judicial review is extremely narrow, focusing on whether there was a colorable basis for the action rather than its wisdom or necessity. This precedent will make it very difficult for states to legally challenge future federalizations of their National Guard units in response to civil unrest.
