The legal clash between California Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles is heating up.
The Daily Caller reported that Governor Newsom’s attempt to block the Guard’s deployment faces skepticism from legal experts who predict a likely win for President Trump.
The confrontation began when Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against the President, opposing the deployment intended to maintain order following civil unrest in Los Angeles.
The legal battle intensified when a district court judge sided with Newsom and blocked the federal action, arguing that it exceeded the statutory authority and infringed upon the Tenth Amendment.
Legal Experts Question Judge’s Ruling
However, the victory for Newsom was short-lived as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals intervened. The appellate court swiftly put the district court’s decision on hold, allowing the National Guard to stay in place until a scheduled hearing.
The legality of the deployment, ordered under a federal statute meant to address rebellion or foreign threats, is under considerable scrutiny. Critics, including several prominent legal scholars, expressed doubts about the strength and longevity of the district court’s ruling.
South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman noted, “These are issues that the Supreme Court never weighed in on. I am confident this ruling will not stand.”
His sentiments reflect the overarching belief among experts that Newsom faces an uphill legal battle.
Joseph Moreno emphasized the foundational challenge, stating, “Judge Breyer effectively conceded that Governor Newsom lacked a veto power over President Trump’s decision.” Moreno’s comments underscore the constitutional tension over presidential powers and state rights, central elements in this legal showdown.
This latest legal conflict is marked by differing interpretations of both the statutory basis and constitutional provisions involved in military deployments.
The deployment was initiated based on discussions between Trump and Newsom, with official orders transmitted through military channels.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith critiqued the district judge’s approach, stating, “I was not persuaded by the judge’s second-guessing of the president.” Goldsmith’s perspective highlights an important aspect of the debate: the discretion typically afforded to the president in enforcing national security.
Implications of Guard Deployment
Despite the legal wrangling, hundreds of Marines have been stationed in Los Angeles amid the ongoing discussions. This deployment casts a spotlight on the broader question of the president’s emergency powers.
Jonathan Turley further commented on the situation, noting that even if the National Guard’s deployment is neutralized pending appeal, “President Trump has ample authority to flood the zone with federal personnel.” This paints a vivid picture of the possible next steps for the administration to maintain order and security.
The complexity of the National Guard deployment hinges on its interpretation and the broader national security context.
Federal law generally grants leeway to the executive branch, which Trump’s legal team asserts is justified in this instance.
Looking ahead, the upcoming hearing will further scrutinize the specifics of the authority granted by federal law and the constitutional issues raised by Newsom’s lawsuit. Those in favor of Trump’s actions argue that the intervention is both necessary and lawful, anticipating a favorable outcome.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Tracey Grover
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
