California’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize the state’s National Guard faces a significant challenge. The primary legal question revolves around whether the Trump administration had the authority to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The Legal Basis of Trump’s Decision
Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard was based on a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of “a rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority or when the president cannot execute federal laws using usual mechanisms. This law gives the president broad powers, but with limitations. Once the National Guard arrives, they can only support other law enforcement officers, protecting federal law enforcement officers and property, but cannot perform searches and seizures due to the Posse Comitatus Act.
California’s Arguments Against the Decision
California’s lawsuit argues that there is no rebellion or danger of rebellion that would justify the deployment of the National Guard. Furthermore, the state contends that the president’s decision infringes on state sovereignty and that the law requires orders to federalize the National Guard to be issued “through the governors,” implying that a governor’s consent is necessary. However, the plain language of the statute does not explicitly require a governor’s consent, and reading such a requirement into the statute would give state governors veto power over a president’s decision, potentially inconsistent with congressional intent.
Recent Developments
On June 10, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency motion asking for a temporary restraining order to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active-duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of Los Angeles. However, a federal judge denied California’s request for an immediate block on Trump’s use of military in Los Angeles, instead scheduling a hearing to consider the request.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
The legal landscape would significantly change if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and allow the National Guard to directly enforce domestic law. California also argues that Trump’s actions violate the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not given to the federal government to the states and the people. The outcome of California’s lawsuit will depend on the court’s interpretation of the relevant laws and the president’s authority.
