Judge weighs constitutionality in Newsom v. Trump hearing, promises to rule quickly

Yahoo

21 hours ago

During a federal court hearing of Newsom v. Trump on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer focused on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding the president's authority to federalize the National Guard.
Were President Donald Trump's actions on June 8 to deploy nearly 4,000 California National Guard soldiers on protesters against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an abuse of power or constitutionally sound?
Trump's order to deploy 700 Marines was beyond his scope of jurisdiction, Breyer said.
'I'm just trying to figure out where the lines are drawn,' Breyer said during the hearing. 'It's important because it establishes a system of process, a system of regularity, a system of norms, and a system (of) how you go forward and how you govern yourselves and how you implement the basic dictates of the Constitution and of the Declaration of Independence, that's what the system is.'
Breyer said he would rule quickly on the issue.
The federal law in question states explicitly three conditions to which the president of the United States can activate the National Guard:
The United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation.
There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.
The President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
Gov. Gavin Newsom's suit against Trump is his response to what he believes was an abuse of power. 'Theatre, it's madness, it's unconstitutional,' he said during an interview on The New York Times podcast, 'The Daily,' and went as far as to say Trump was using the Guard as 'pawns.'
Though Trump's attorney, Brett Shumate, an attorney for the federal government, argued before the judge that Trump was within his executive authority in federalizing the guards, and also said Trump had spoken to Newsom the day before he did.
But even if he hadn't, Shumate said it ultimately doesn't matter.
'I think there's no doubt on this record that Gov. Newsom was fully aware of this order. He objected to it publicly.'
'You need to focus on the language of the statute that says the orders shall be issued through the governors of the state. It doesn't say by the governors. It doesn't say consult with the governor. It doesn't say the governor is the co-executive and has a right to approve. It merely says pass through. It says the governor here is a conduit for those orders. He is not somebody who gets to issue orders, countermand orders.'
Breyer's concern with how Trump's authority is interpreted was made clear when he related it to monarchy.
'This country was founded in response to a monarchy, and the Constitution is a document of limitations, frequently limitations, and an enunciation of rights,' he said.
Nicholas Green, attorney for California, fed the idea that Trump was serving more like a King George than a George Washington.
'The version of executive power to police civil community that the government is advancing is breathtaking in its scope,' he said, adding that the federal attorneys were treating presidential power as if it has 'no guardrails' and is 'unreviewable by the courts.'
'The provisions in the Constitution related to the militia and the domestic use of law enforcement flow from the initial concerns of the deployment of military forces to police a civilian population that animated the founders.'
After nearly an hour of back and forth, Breyer said he would try to reach a decision as soon as possible.