9th Circuit Hears Arguments On Trump’s Authority Of National Guard

A federal judge was wrong to second-guess President Donald Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard, attorney Brett Schumate argued Tuesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Schumate, an assistant attorney general, made the argument during an appeal of last week’s U.S. District Court for Northern California’s ruling transferring control of the guard back to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The Trump administration immediately appealed, and the 9th Circuit put a temporary stay on the ruling until justices rule on the appeal.

According to media reports, Shumate argued in the 9th Circuit’s San Francisco courtroom that U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, a Biden appointee, improperly second-guessed the president’s judgment on protecting federal property and personnel and that courts had no role in reviewing the decision. Shumate contended Trump had the authority to call in the National Guard and cited Martin v. Mott, a U.S. Supreme Court case that allows presidents, not governors or a federal court, to make such decisions.

The counterargument came from Samuel Harbourt, a deputy solictor general representing California in its effort to retake control of the National Guard. Harbourt said the state’s sovereignty was at stake and that continuing to pause Breyer’s ruling would allow the Trump administration “to further escalate tensions and the risk of violence.”

In a Sunday brief filed by Harbourt, state Attorney General Rob Bonta and others, the California Department of Justice argued Trump’s decision to federalize a state’s national guard despite a governor’s objection was unprecedented. The state argued that the deployment came in “response to local protests and civi disobedience no different from what communities nationwide have experienced dozens of times since the enactment of Section 12406.” Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 to justify the deployment.