California's National Guard lawsuit against Trump has a big problem
After President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard into Los Angeles over the weekend against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is fighting back. Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California is suing the administration, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the National Guard in this case and was infringing on state sovereignty.
Trump's decision to send in the National Guard may be morally (and politically) problematic. The difficulty facing California's lawsuit is that federal law appears to give not just President Trump, but any president, broad authority to federalize the National Guard, whether or not a governor wants him to do so.
The primary legal question is whether the Trump administration had the power to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor. The presidential memorandum Trump issued Saturday deploying the National Guard invoked a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The power that Section 12406 confers on presidents is broad but not unlimited. It gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard when there is 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion' against federal authority, or when the president cannot, using the usual mechanisms, execute federal laws.
Once the National Guard arrives, however, it can only support other law enforcement officers. They can help to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal property, but they cannot, for instance, perform searches and seizures. Why such limits? Because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances. And Section 12406 does not suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act.
To invoke his authority under Section 12406, Trump concluded that, '[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.'
California has argued that there is no such rebellion. One problem for the state's lawsuit is that there is of course no settled definition of what a rebellion is. In addition, federal judges tend to defer to presidents when it comes to questions of national security. Federal judges, who are not chosen by voters, are generally wary of second-guessing the judgment of an elected president when it comes to questions of whether or not we are in danger of a rebellion.
California also argues that because Section 12406 requires that orders to federalize the National Guard be issued 'through the governors,' that means that a president cannot take this action against the wishes of the state's governor. However, the plain language of the statute does not include an explicit requirement of a governor's consent. In addition, reading such a requirement into the statute would provide any state governor with veto power over a president's decision under this federal law. That hardly seems consistent with congressional intent.
Finally, California argues that Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. But the plain terms of Section 12406 do appear to give the president the power to federalize the National Guard.
The legal landscape would change significantly if the president tries to invoke his power under the Insurrection Act. If he does, the protections in the Posse Comitatus Act are suspended, and the National Guard, and other branches of the military, can act to directly enforce domestic law. We are not there yet, but if Trump takes that step, it would be a dramatic escalation of an already historic standoff between the federal government and the state.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis react to the US strike on Iran's nuclear sites
Donald Trump on Saturday announced the US had launched strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites. The attack takes US involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel to a new level. Here's how business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis reacted to the news. President Donald Trump on Saturday confirmed that US warplanes had executed "massive precision" airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, in what he described in a press conference as a "spectacular military success." The military operation marks a significant escalation in the tensions between Iran and Israel and represents a new level of US involvement in the international conflict. Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis reacted to the news. Billionaire hedge fund manager Ackman, a longtime ally of the president's, was among the first to publicly react to the news with a post on X. "Thank you to our great military for its superb execution on ridding Iran of its nuclear threat," Ackman wrote shortly after the news broke. "All Americans are eternally grateful for you." He continued later, writing in a separate post: "To state the obvious, @realDonaldTrump's actions tonight are a lot better than relying on the IRGC's 'commitment' to not develop nuclear weapons." "In eight days, the United States and Israel eliminated Iran's nuclear capabilities with minimal civilian casualties," he added in another post. "One of the greatest military achievements ever." Serial entrepreneur Calacanis posted on X, "Five months into Trump's term, we're at war." In a subsequent post, he elaborated, saying that his initial statement was "just an observation, published without judgement." "We don't have the intelligence that our leaders have, so I will reserve judgement until we know more," Calacanis wrote. "It should be obvious to everyone, however, that no president can just stop conflicts on day one. We now have three conflicts were involved in." The founder of the hedge fund Tolou Capital Management responded to the strikes in a series of posts on social media, describing the US military operation as "completely undetectable," given that no flight trackers showed US military aircraft over Iran within 30 minutes of the strikes. "Say what you want," Hakimian wrote. "The United States military is A1 and there's not a close competitor at the moment." In a separate post, Hakimian added: "The most escalatory thing that Iran can do is not to bomb U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It's to close the Strait of Hormuz. And if that happens, Oil goes above $100 in the blink of an eye. Iran is no military match for the United States. But they can wreak havoc via inflation. Just like Russia in 2022." Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, praised Trump as the "Greatest President of my lifetime." "You may just not realize it yet," Maguire wrote in a post on X, alongside a picture of Trump with his fist in the air after he was wounded during an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. "Bulletproof instincts and nerves of steel." A vocal supporter of Trump and cofounder of Azoria investment firm, Fishback praised the US strikes — and criticized those who expressed concern over the rising geopolitical tensions — in a series of posts on X. "Iran can't possibly think this is the start of a U.S. offensive. Trump's been clear from the start: they can't have a nuke. We just accomplished that. We're done here," Fishback said in one post. "If Iran chooses to retaliate against a clearly telegraphed, one-and-done strike, they'd be signing their own death warrant. Trump was right." In a separate post, he added: "The Fordow nuclear site was a uranium enrichment facility, not a mosque. Not everything is Islamophobia. Calm down. Leave your weird identity politics out of this." Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom Supersonic, which is developing what it calls the "world's fastest airliner," said in a post on X that he was "proud to be an American tonight." "We can all sleep safer knowing the most dangerous regime won't have the most dangerous weapons," he wrote. Lauder, one of the heirs of the Estee Lauder cosmetics company and a prominent pro-Israel lobbyist, said on X that a "nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Western civilization and global security." "It is my hope that today's historic operation by the United States has brought an end to the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions once and for all," he wrote. "I applaud President Trump and his administration for having the courage to act decisively, and for lending critical American support to Israel's effort to build a safer and more stable Middle East." The Lux Capital cofounder and partner has shared several posts on X in the wake of the US strikes, including one responding to Calacanis' initial suggestion that the US was "at war." "NO. We just helped stop MANY future wars," he wrote. Moskovitz, the cofounder of Asana and Good Ventures, responded critically to Trump's announcement that the US had struck multiple sites inside Iran. "Now is the time for peace, President Trump says immediately after starting a war," he wrote on Bluesky. Trump made the call for peace in all caps at the end of his Truth Social post announcing the attack. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance claims US is at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran
JD Vance has said the US is 'not at war' with Iran – but is with its nuclear weapons program, holding out a position that the White House hopes to maintain over the coming days as the Iranian regime considers a retributive response to Saturday's US strike on three of its nuclear installations. In an interview Sunday with NBC News' Meet the Press, the US vice-president was asked if the US was now at war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran,' Vance replied. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But Vance declined to confirm with absolute certainty that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, a position that Donald Trump set out in a Saturday night address when the president stated that the targeted Iranian facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated' in the US strikes. Related: Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards Vance instead said that he believes the US has 'substantially delayed' Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. 'I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground there in Iran, but we've seen a lot, and I feel very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon, and that was the goal of this attack,' Vance said. He continued: 'Severely damaged versus obliterated – I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. 'What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially.' An Iranian member of parliament claimed on Sunday that the Fordo enrichment plant, the focus of seven B-2 bombers armed with 14 premier bunker-busters from the US arsenal, was not seriously damaged. Those bombers to Missouri on Sunday. Separately, Bloomberg News said satellite images of the site undermined the Trump administration's claims that Iran's underground nuclear sites at Fordo and Natanz had been destroyed. Satellite images distributed by Maxar Technologies showed new craters, possible collapsed tunnel entrances and holes on top of a mountain ridge. But the main support building at the facility remained undamaged, the report said. Maxar said in a statement that images of Natanz showed a new crater about 5.5 meters (18ft) in diameter over the underground facility – but they did not offer conclusive evidence that the 40-meter-deep nuclear engineering site had been breached. The chair of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Dan Caine, said at a Pentagon briefing on Sunday: 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.' Related: How the carefully planned US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities unfolded Nuclear non-proliferation analysts are conflicted on whether the strikes will be effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table or convince them to move more decisively toward enriching uranium stockpiles to weapons-grade, assembling a bomb, and manufacturing a delivery system. In a statement to Bloomberg, Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said there were slim prospects that the US entering the war would convince Iran to increase International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cooperation. The nuclear watchdog has said it is not sure where Iran's 400lb stockpile of 60% uranium is. 'The more likely scenario is that they convince Iran that cooperation and transparency don't work and that building deeper facilities and ones not declared openly is more sensible to avoid similar targeting in future,' Dolzikova said. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said he planned to fly to Moscow to meet with Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, on Monday morning for consultations. Separately, Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said his forces were progressing toward its goal of destroying Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile threats. 'We are moving step after step to achieve these goals. We are very, very close to completing them,' he said.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards
Saturday's US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump's 'Make America great again' (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts. The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack 'our homeland' in retaliation. 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,' Greene wrote on X. But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening. Related: Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran In that message, Greene wrote: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes. Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, 'It hasn't been lost … that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank.' That came amid ongoing speculation that Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday stemmed from information that Iran was close to developing a weapon – as supplied by Israeli, and not US, intelligence sources. The issue created an apparent split between Trump and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The president recently criticized Gabbard and the US intelligence community, saying they were 'wrong' in assessing that Iran had not taken the political step of ordering a bomb. Gabbard has denied that she and Trump were not on the same page. Nonetheless, Bannon continued his criticism of the strikes, saying: 'I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck.' The former White House adviser also criticized Trump for leaving open the possibility of further US strikes if Iran fails to capitulate to US demands. 'I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of Maga wanted to hear,' he said. 'It sounded … very open-ended.' Days earlier, amid signs of a Maga rebellion against the administration's increasingly hawkish stance on Iran, Bannon told an audience in Washington that bitterness over the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a driving force for Trump's first presidential victory. 'One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. Bannon, though, said 'the Maga movement will back Trump' despite its opposition to military interventions. But there are now signs that the Maga 'America first' isolationist position may be more amenable to limited airstrikes. The administration has stressed that Saturday's raids only targeted Iran's nuclear enrichment and not manufacturing locations, population centers or economic assets, including the oil terminal at Karg island. Related: Cheering support and instant condemnation: US lawmakers respond to attack on Iran The far-right influencer Charlie Kirk had warned of a Maga divide over Iran, saying 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' Yet on Sunday, Kirk reposted a clip of an interview with JD Vance on Meet the Press in which the vice-president praised the B-2 pilots from Missouri who carried out the previous day's bombing. 'They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine, and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East,' Vance said in the clip. 'Whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.' In that interview, Vance suggested Trump had 'probably' decided by mid-May that the diplomatic process with Iran was 'not going anywhere'. But Vance refused to be drawn on when precisely Trump approved the strike, saying it probably came 'over time'.
