California files lawsuit over Trump's ‘unlawful' deployment of national guard
Donald Trump's extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an 'unprecedented usurpation' of state powers, according to the court filing.
'The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in violation of the Constitution,' the complaint states.
Previewing the suitearlier on Monday, the attorney general, Rob Bonta, said the move 'trampled' the state's sovereignty, overriding objections by the governor, Gavin Newsom, and going 'against the wishes of law enforcement on the ground'. Bonta said the legal action will ask the court to declare Trump's deployment of the guard unlawful and will seek a restraining order to halt the use of its troops to manage the protests.
'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California national guard troops,' the attorney general said during a virtual news conference on Monday.
The announcement came hours before the US military said it was activating a battalion of 700 marines to Los Angeles to protect federal property and personnel. On Monday evening, Newsom said he had been informed that Trump was deploying an additional 2,000 national guard troops to the city.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly did not address specifics of the lawsuit, saying in a statement that California should 'prosecute the anti-Ice rioters' and accusing the governor of being 'more focused on saving face than protecting law enforcement and holding criminals accountable'.
'As the president said, Newsom should thank him for restoring law and order,' Kelly said.
Democratic officials have argued that local law enforcement agencies had been adequately managing the protests, which began on Friday in response to a series of immigration enforcement operations across the LA area.
'This was not inevitable,' Bonta said, arguing that the demonstrations had largely dissipated by the time Trump, on Saturday, announced his plans to assert federal control over at least 2,000 national guard troops for at least 60 days, which Bonta said inflamed the situation. On Sunday, roughly 300 California national guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, prompting an outpouring of anger and fear among residents.
Trump's call-up order 'skipped over multiple rational, common sense, strategic steps that should have been deployed to quell unrest and prevent escalation', he said.
Newsom has accused Trump of intentionally sowing chaos, claiming Trump 'wants a civil war on the streets' and appealing for protesters not to give the administration the spectacle of violence it is hoping to stoke.
'This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 'Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence – this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy.'
On Sunday, Newsom formally requested that Trump rescind his order and return command of the guard to his office. In a letter to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, the governor's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, argued there was 'currently no need' for such intervention by the federal government and that local law enforcement was capable of 'safeguarding public safety'.
In the court filing, California alleges that Hegseth acted 'unlawfully' by circumventing the governor when he ordered the national guard into federal service.
'Trump and Hegseth jumped from zero to 60,' Bonta said. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.'
In a rhetorical back and forth between Newsom and Trump, longtime political foes who clashed repeatedly during Trump's first administration, Trump said he endorsed a threat by his 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest Democratic leaders in California if they impeded law enforcement, including Newsom. 'Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump told reporters on Monday.
Related: Los Angeles faces fourth day of protests as Trump deploys 2,000 national guard
Newsom responded to the taunt on X, formerly Twitter, calling Trump's support for the arrest of a sitting governor 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'.
The Trump administration has said that the immigration protests in Los Angeles amount to a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the United States government.
The order does not invoke the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy US soldiers to police streets during times of rebellion or unrest. Instead, it cites a rarely used section of federal law, known as Title 10, that allows the president to federalize national guard units in circumstances where there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'.
'There was no risk of rebellion, no threat of foreign invasion, no inability for the federal government to enforce federal laws,' Bonta said. He told reporters his office had studied the Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond should Trump later invoke it as a legal authority to deploy the US military. 'We're prepared for all of it,' he said.
The statute has been invoked only once in modern history, Bonta noted, in 1970, when president Richard Nixon mobilized the nationalguard to deliver the mail during a strike by the postal service. The last time a president activated the national guard without a request from the state's governor was in 1965, when president Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.
In 1992, George HW Bush sent troops to LA to calm widespread civil unrest following the acquittal of four white police officers for brutally beating Black motorist Rodney King. But in that case both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles requested the federal intervention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
10 minutes ago
- UPI
The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman speaks during a news conference about the arrest of American financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on July 8, 2019, on sex trafficking charges, File photo by Jason Szenes July 30 (UPI) -- The sordid saga of the long dead and convicted predator Jeffrey Epstein not only poses a threat to Donald Trump's presidency, but it also conceivably threatens the credibility of the U.S. political system. Yet, an even more sinister and potentially dangerous threat lurks for the United States and its friends. The two threats are linked, ironically, by Epstein's ghost. Trump's MAGA base is furious that the promised Epstein files have not been released. What's worse is that that Attorney General Pam Bondi apparently informed Trump his name was in the file -- high-test fuel for that blaze. And, now, possibly to deflect attention, Trump and his director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have accused former President Barack Obama of treason by interfering in the 2016 election with Russian help. In a nation as politically divided as America, any spark could ignite a political firestorm. Beijing, Moscow and others with malicious intent are intensely watching this saga. One conclusion must be that even greater opportunities exist today to interfere in United States and Western politics, not just exploiting this debacle. More importantly, creating new crises that manipulate and fracture political and social cohesion is a formidable danger. The U.K.'s Brexit is an example of manipulation. In the effort to withdraw from the European Union -- the Leave campaign -- former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings determined that 1 million or so Britons lacked party affiliation. Then, using social media, this group was targeted with Leave propaganda generated by Cummings. That swung the vote to leave. Cummings was not alone. Substantial evidence exists that Moscow helped influence Brexit and the Leave campaign to weaken the Atlantic Alliance. And Moscow also interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Consider the infamous Steele Dossier. Among the allegations, the dossier accused Trump of lewd sexual behavior in Moscow. Suspend reality and imagine Vladimir Putin intervened to help elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. Following Cummings' lead, Russian trolls would have filled the Internet with deep-fake photos and invented stories exaggerating or inventing Trump's misconduct. One wonders who might have been elected 45th president. China and Moscow have significant interests in manipulating and fracturing American and Western cohesion. Putin is focused on winning in Ukraine, minimizing sanctions, and in the process, weakening Western solidarity. China is keen on reducing American economic and political influence, as well as annexing Taiwan. It would be negligent to not assume China and Russia are identifying critical weaknesses and potential future fracture points in the United States and elsewhere. In that event where might they focus? National political systems, given the Epstein debacle and national infrastructures, are the two most obvious candidates. Regarding the United States, the Constitution and its system of government based on checks and balances and a division of power among three co-equal branches are the best targets. A super-majority of Americans is highly distrustful and disdainful of government. Exploiting this distrust would not be difficult using the ubiquity of social media and the propensity of Americans to embrace conspiracy theories. Epstein and the Steele Dossier are two examples of how possible future fractures can be invented to sow political, social and economic disruption. The difference is that these effects could be even more destructive. Regarding infrastructure, Israeli and Ukrainian infiltration of two societies with seeming control of their borders and people to launch surprise attacks deep into Iran and Russia underscores how potentially vulnerable military bases and installations are to drones. And even more susceptible to drone attacks are electric generation and power grids, which could cause nationwide disruption. Kinetic attacks on military and civilian infrastructure are fraught with risk. But perceived threats are not. The strategy would be to use a variant of Orson Welles' provocation of massive public and psychological panic in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938. Consider future Wellesian scenarios on steroids that threaten catastrophic events or apply fake news reports of spreading epidemics or environmental, financial and other disasters to induce fear and disruption. Concocting new and credible conspiracy theories would be part of this disruptive strategy. None of this is new. The USSR used the Comintern, Cominform and KGB to misinform, disinform, disrupt and provoke. The United States and the U.K. employed similar techniques principally against the Nazis in World War II. However, today is different because social and other media can turn these activities into political weapons of mass disruption. The United States will survive Epstein. Against determined adversaries who intend to create and exploit new political fractures, are the United States and the West ready? That answer is sadly no. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter
WASHINGTON − An ongoing effort by Republicans to redraw Texas' congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections continues to agitate Democrats across the country, as they search for ways to block or counter an initiative sought by President Donald Trump. The White House has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans to advance on a rare mid-decade redistricting, with the hope that shifting boundaries could help the party pick up as many as five seats in next year's race for control of the U.S. House. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, and the GOP are hoping the boost can help them hang onto their razor-thin lower chamber majority during the final two years of Trump's second term and amid the 2028 race for the White House. Texas Democrats balked when Abbott agreed to add redistricting to their to-do list for a 30-day special session that began July 21 in Austin. Now, liberal lawmakers are crying foul with blue state governors threatening tit-for-tat responses and Texas Democrats weighing their own limited protest options as the GOP seeks to make major changes to the critical voter boundary lines that make up the nation's second largest congressional delegation. Here's the latest to know on the controversial redistricting effort happening in the Lone Star State. What could a new map look like? Texas Republicans released their proposed new map on July 30. Ahead of the official release, Punchbowl News first reported that the anticipated redraw would shift district boundaries around Dallas, Houston, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley. There would still be 38 total seats in the Texas delegation under the new maps - leaving it second only to California's 52 seats. But five Texas seats would be redrawn in a bid that Republican envision giving their candidates a leg up with more GOP voters. Democrats who at risk of losing their spot in Congress include Reps. Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Marc Veasey, according to Punchbowl. Democrats charge partisan law violation The rare push to redraw the boundary lines has led Democratic senators to accuse Trump administration officials of breaking a decades-old law limiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan activities − such as advocating for a state's redistricting in order to benefit their political party. In a letter to the Office of Special Counsel, California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, along with Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse and Illinois' Dick Durbin, called for an investigation into members of Trump's White House and Justice Department, accusing them of breaking the Hatch Act. "The purpose of this redistricting push is to defeat Democratic Members of Congress and elect Republicans to affect the balance of political party power in the 120th Congress," the senators wrote. "While such goals are appropriate for a political party organization, they are not appropriate for executive branch officials," they added, "especially at the Department of Justice which must take greater steps to ensure it acts with impartiality." The Hatch Act does not apply to the president or vice president. Hakeem Jeffries took a trip to Texas House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, made a trip to Texas July 30, the same day Republicans released their proposed map. While there, Politico reported that Jeffries planned to meet with Rep. Al Green, a Houston lawmaker whose district could be caught in the crosshairs of a major map shake up. "We understand that this is all hands on deck for us in the Democratic Party," Green told Politico. Jeffries has been vocal in his opposition to the redistricting plans, saying in a July 15 press conference, "Texas Republicans are likely going to continue to act like political punks and bend the knee to Donald Trump's extreme agenda." Later, he told CNN, regarding Democrats' response: "Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be." Redistricting arms race could ensue Jeffries is not the only blue state lawmaker proposing an equal and opposite reaction to Texas. Democrats coast-to-coast have promised a full-scale counterattack, should the Lone Star State move forward with redistricting. "We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people," Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Democrat from Washington and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a meeting July 23. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has suggested a redistricting in his state to offset Republican actions. (But unlike in Texas where legislators decide district lines, Newsom does face a major obstacle in the form of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps.) The response from Democrats has enticed other Republican-controlled states to potentially jump in too. Missouri Republicans are pondering a plan to give their party a geographical leg up, and legislatures in other states such as Florida and New Hampshire have the ability to reevaluate maps like Texas. Texas Democrats eye leaving the state Back in Texas, Democrats have a limited number of options to counter a GOP-controlled state House and Senate. Their primary tool is a controversial and seldom used move to flee the state and break the quorum necessary to proceed in the legislative session. State Democrats last used the measure in 2021 to protest new voting restrictions. After that episode, in which representatives halted operations for 38 days, Republicans approved a $500 a day fine for breaking quorum. The monetary punishment could be enough to give Democrats pause about leaving the state this time. However, the Texas Tribune reported deep-pocked Democratic donors are ready to assist and enable a potential walkout.
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Texas Republicans propose new US House map with more winnable GOP seats
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new congressional map that creates five additional GOP-leaning districts, bolstering their chances of maintaining control as they brace for a challenging midterm election. The redrawn map comes during a special legislative session called by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, as President Donald Trump urges Texas Republicans to reshape districts in the party's favor. Republicans hope the new Texas map will strengthen their chances of holding the U.S. House in 2026, and Trump officials have signaled their efforts may expand beyond the state, with similar pushes now underway in Missouri. Republicans in Texas currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats, and the new map ups the total they could win to 30. All of those new 30 seats were won by Trump in November by at least 10 percentage points, leading to conservative optimism they can hold them even in what's likely to be a tough midterm environment for the party. The new seats come from making two Rio Grande Valley seats that have been narrowly won by Democrats recently slightly more Republican, collapsing two seats held by Democrats Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar in the Austin and San Antonio area into a single liberal district and turning two Democratic-held seats in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area into GOP-majority ones. Rep. Greg Casar, one of the Democrats who could face a more difficult reelection under the new map, called the proposed changes 'illegal voter suppression,' pointing to the merging of his district with another Democratic-held seat.
