Thursday, June 12, 2025

Newsom v. Trump: Case No. 3:25-cv-04870: U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer's June 12, 2025 order.

From Wikipedia:

Newsom v. Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newsom v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameGavin Newsom, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. 
Docket nos.3:25-cv-04870-CRB
Case history
Prior actionMotion for temporary restraining order filed June 10, 2025; TRO granted June 12, 2025
Court membership
Judge sittingCharles R. Breyer
Case opinions
Whether the President may federalize the National Guard and deploy Marines in Los Angeles under 10 U.S.C. § 252
Keywords

Newsom v. Trump is an ongoing federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[1] Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California seek to invalidate a June 7, 2025, presidential memorandum by Donald J. Trump that federalized up to 4,000 California National Guard troops and deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles.[2] California argues the order exceeds the President’s authority under 10 U.S.C. § 252 of the Insurrection Act, violates the Tenth Amendment, and contravenes the Posse Comitatus Act.[1] Federal defendants counter that the deployment is a lawful and necessary measure to protect federal property and personnel.[3] On June 12, 2025, District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted California's motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the federal deployment and restoring control of the Guard to Newsom pending further hearings.[4]

Background

See also: June 2025 Los Angeles protests

Protests and Federal Response

  • June 6, 2025 – Demonstrations began in downtown Los Angeles following a series of workplace raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[5]
  • The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) described the protests as "largely peaceful," reporting only "isolated vandalism."[6]
  • June 7, 2025 – Citing a "rebellion" against federal authority, President Trump invoked § 252, ordering the federalization of the National Guard and the deployment of U.S. Marines to protect federal property.[2]

Parties

Claims

  1. Exceeding Statutory Authority – The President's order is ultra vires as conditions did not meet the legal standard for invoking 10 U.S.C. § 252.
  2. Violation of State Sovereignty – The order infringes upon powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
  3. Violation of Posse Comitatus Act – The deployment uses the armed forces for domestic law enforcement contrary to federal law.

Litigation History

  • June 9–10, 2025 – Complaint and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by California.[1]
  • June 11, 2025 – The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its opposition to the TRO motion.[3]
  • June 11, 2025 – A coalition of 22 state attorneys general filed an amicus curiae brief supporting California.[7] A separate brief was filed by a group of retired military officials, also in support of California.[8]
  • June 12, 2025 – U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer held a two-hour hearing on California’s TRO request in San Francisco.[9]
    • Breyer repeatedly questioned the Justice Department’s claim that the President’s invocation of 10 U.S.C. § 252 is judicially unreviewable, asking, “How is that any different than what a monarch does?” and waving a pocket Constitution at government counsel.[10]
    • He suggested the order may be procedurally defective because it was not issued “through” Governor Newsom, as the statute requires.[9]
    • While reluctant to “micromanage” military operations, Breyer indicated he might bar federalized National Guard troops from participating in immigration raids and hinted he could declare the entire deployment unlawful. He took the matter under submission and said a written decision would follow “very soon.”[11]
  • June 12, 2025 (later the same day) – Judge Breyer issued a 36-page order granting the TRO. The Court found that the President’s actions were ultra vires because none of the statutory conditions under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were met, concluded that the federalization of the Guard infringed the Tenth Amendment, and enjoined any federal use of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. The order directs defendants to return control of the Guard to Governor Newsom, stays its effect until noon on June 13, and sets a preliminary-injunction hearing for June 20, 2025.[4]

This section details the primary constitutional and statutory arguments presented by the plaintiffs (State of California) and the federal defendants (the U.S. Government) in court filings.

Plaintiffs’ Constitutional and Statutory Challenges

Ultra Vires and Statutory Interpretation

California argues that the President's order is ultra vires (beyond his legal power) because the factual conditions required to invoke the Insurrection Act were not met. In their motion for a temporary restraining order, the state's attorneys cite the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). They argue that Sterling establishes that a president's or governor's power to declare martial law or deploy troops is not absolute and that courts can review whether the "exigency" actually exists.[1]

Plaintiffs contend that no such "factual necessity" for military intervention existed in Los Angeles. They point to statements from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) characterizing the protests as "largely peaceful"[6] and assert that local and state law enforcement had ample capacity to manage any isolated incidents of unrest.[1] The state's brief argues that the term "rebellion" in 10 U.S.C. § 252 implies a state of organized, armed insurrection that renders civilian government and courts unable to function—a threshold they argue was clearly not crossed by the protests.[2]

Tenth Amendment and Federalism Concerns

The plaintiffs assert that the President's order violates the Tenth Amendment and core principles of federalism. They invoke the "anti-commandeering" doctrine, which the Supreme Court articulated in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), and later reinforced in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).[1] This doctrine prohibits the federal government from compelling states or their officials to enforce federal law. California argues that by federalizing the state's National Guard without the governor's consent and deploying it for a domestic mission that the state opposes, the President is unconstitutionally "commandeering" a state institution.[7]

While the federal government relies heavily on Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), California's lawyers distinguish that case. They argue that Perpich affirmed the federal government's power to call the Guard into federal service for missions like overseas training and combat, but it did not address the distinct constitutional issues raised by a domestic deployment for law enforcement purposes against the explicit wishes of the state's governor.[1]

Posse Comitatus Act Violations

The complaint alleges that deploying active-duty U.S. Marines to patrol city streets and perform tasks that are traditionally the role of civilian police is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385).[1]Plaintiffs cite cases such as Bissonette v. Haig, 776 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1985), which affirmed that while the military can be used for passive purposes like protecting federal property, it cannot be used for "active" or "direct" law enforcement activities like arrests, searches, or crowd control among the civilian population.[1] To bolster their claim that the military deployment was unnecessary and therefore unlawful, the state's filing highlights testimony from LAPD Chief Michel Moore stating that he did not request federal assistance and that his department's resources were "adequate" to handle the protests.[6]

Federal Defendants’ Response

Executive Authority and Statutory Compliance

In its opposition to the temporary restraining order, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the President has broad, judicially unreviewable discretion to deploy troops under the Insurrection Act. The DOJ's central argument rests on the 1827 Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827), which held that the President's judgment about when to call forth the militia is "exclusive and conclusive."[3]

The government asserts this nearly 200-year-old precedent makes the President's decision non-justiciable. The DOJ further claims that even if the court could review the decision, a sufficient factual basis existed. The government's brief describes "violent riots" and points to federal intelligence reports alleging planned attacks on federal courthouses and detention centers as justification for the President's conclusion that a "rebellion" against U.S. authority was underway.[3]

Federalism and Constitutional Balance

The government's brief counters California's Tenth Amendment claims by arguing that once the National Guard is federalized under Article I of the Constitution, its members lose their status as a state militia and become part of the federal armed forces. Citing Perpich, the DOJ maintains that governors have no constitutional authority to veto a presidential order calling the Guard into federal service.[3] The DOJ brief argues that the Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the overriding authority to protect its own functions. The government invokes the principle of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), not for its specific facts, but for the broader proposition that states cannot obstruct the execution of federal law.[3]

Posse Comitatus Act Compliance

The DOJ argues that the military deployment is fully compliant with the Posse Comitatus Act for two main reasons. First, the mission is characterized as "passive" perimeter security for federal buildings, a role the government argues falls within an established exception to the Act's prohibitions.[12] Second, and more fundamentally, the government contends that the Insurrection Act itself is a legislative exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Because § 252 expressly authorizes the President to use the military to "suppress any insurrection" and "execute the laws," the DOJ argues that any deployment lawfully taken under the Insurrection Act cannot, by definition, violate the Posse Comitatus Act.[3]

Third-Party Perspectives

Amicus Curiae Briefs

A group of retired flag officers and civilian military secretaries filed an amicus brief arguing that the President's order "erodes the critical norm of non-political, civilian control of the military." They warned that using troops for routine protest response risks dangerously politicizing the armed forces and should only be a true last resort when civil authority has completely broken down.[8]

An amicus brief filed by 22 state attorneys general supports California, arguing that the President's interpretation of § 252 is "unlimited in scope" and sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the sovereignty of all states.[7]

Scholarly Commentary

Legal scholars noted the case raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers. Professor David Levine of the UC College of the Law, San Francisco, described the case as "very tricky" for the court, predicting a narrow ruling.[13] Other experts highlighted that the case could force a modern judicial interpretation of the Insurrection Act, whose key provisions have not been substantively tested in court for decades.

Public and Political Reaction

The deployment drew sharp reactions along partisan lines. The editorial board of The Washington Postargued the President was "militarising a political dispute,"[14] while The Wall Street Journal defended the action as necessary to maintain order.[15]

A YouGov poll conducted on June 10, 2025, found that 54% of Americans disapproved of using active-duty troops for protest response, while 35% approved.[16]

See also

References

  1.  Gavin Newsom & The State of California v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California June 9, 2025), Text.
  2.  Stevens, Matt (June 10, 2025). "California Sues Trump Over Troop Deployment in Los Angeles". The New York Times. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  3.  United States’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (United States District Court for the Northern District of California June 11, 2025), Text.
  4.  Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order (United States District Court for the Northern District of California June 12, 2025), Text.
  5.  Garcia, Carlos (June 6, 2025). "Protests Erupt After ICE Raids Workplaces Across L.A." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  6.  Winton, Richard (June 8, 2025). "LAPD chief: No federal help needed for protests". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  7.  Brief for the States of Washington, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs (United States District Court for the Northern District of California June 11, 2025), Text.
  8.  "Retired military leaders file brief against Trump's troop deployment in LA". Politico. June 11, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  9.  Cheney, Kyle; Josh Gerstein; Dustin Gardiner (June 12, 2025). "Judge sharply questions Trump's Guard deployment to Los Angeles". Politico. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  10.  "Trump official vows to 'liberate' L.A.; judge questions legality of troop deployment". Reuters. June 12, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  11.  Quinn, Melissa (June 12, 2025). "Federal judge weighs Trump's troop deployment to Los Angeles". CBS News. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  12.  "Court hearing set on Trump's use of National Guard and Marines to help with immigration raids in LA". Associated Press. June 12, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  13.  "Legal showdown: Newsom vs. Trump over use of National Guard". KTVU FOX 2. June 12, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  14.  "Trump's troop order crosses a dangerous line". The Washington Post. June 9, 2025. Retrieved June 12,2025.
  15.  "The President's duty to keep order". The Wall Street Journal. June 10, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025.
  16.  "Daily Questions". YouGov. June 10, 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2025. Do you approve or disapprove of deploying Marines to the Los Angeles area to respond to protests over the federal government's immigration enforcement? Disapprove: 54%, Approve: 35%

Docket from Civil Rights Clearinghouse:


Case: Newsom v. Trump

3:25-cv-04870 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 9, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged the federal deployment of the California National Guard to protect federal property and immigration officials from protesters in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. On June 9, 2025, Gavin Newsom and the State of California filed suit in the Northern District of North California, challenging recent actions by President Trump in deploying the National Guard in the Los Angeles area. On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers carried out multiple enforcemen…

Summary Authors

Jeremiah Price (6/12/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/parties/newsom-v-trump/

Judge(s)

Breyer, Charles R. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Dundas, Michael Joseph (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Benbrook, Bradley A. (California)

Carrillo, David A. (California)

Craig, Matthew J. (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/

Last updated June 12, 2025, 10:15 p.m.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)