FOLLOW US

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

SACRAMENTO, CA - The State of California, represented by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, has filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense, seeking to block the federal government’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The lawsuit, officially filed on June 9, 2025, as Case 3:25-cv-04870 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asks the court to declare the federal orders invalid and restore full state control over its National Guard forces.

California’s Factual and Legal Allegations

The complaint opens with the state’s stated purpose: “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 Governor and Attorney General claim that, “President Trump has repeatedly invoked emergency powers to exceed the bounds of lawful executive authority. On Saturday, June 7, he used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the State’s National Guard”.

According to the complaint, on June 6, 2025, ICE agents conducted enforcement operations at multiple sites in Los Angeles County, which led to a series of protests. The state asserts that “most protesters seem to have gathered to express their opposition to the manner in which the Trump Administration has executed its immigration agenda and to express solidarity with and concern for the individuals and families most directly impacted by the enforcement actions taking place in their community.” The complaint acknowledges that while the protests were largely peaceful, there were isolated acts of violence and property damage. However, California insists that, “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years”.

The Statutory Framework and Alleged Violations

At the heart of the lawsuit is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a federal law governing the circumstances in which the President may federalize state National Guard troops. The statute allows such federalization only in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when regular military forces are unable to execute federal law. Importantly, it states, “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.”

California argues that the Trump administration failed to comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements of this law. The complaint asserts, “Defendants did not notify Governor Newsom of the orders or attempt to obtain his consent. Nor did they issue their orders through the Governor as the statute directs. This circumvention deprived the Governor of the opportunity that compliance with the terms of the statute would have afforded him—at a minimum, consultation with the President or other federal officials not only as to whether the California National Guard should be called into federal service at all, but if so, which service members and in what number should be called, and for what purposes and what period of time”.

The lawsuit further contends that the President’s orders did not meet the threshold for any of the conditions specified in § 12406. As the complaint explains, “The Trump Memo does not (and cannot) assert that California is being invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign power. Nor has the Trump Administration identified a ‘rebellion,’ which is generally understood to connote ‘an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, [usually] through violence,’ something much beyond mere protest or sporadic acts of disobedience and violence… nothing about the scale of the protests or acts of violence set these events apart from other recent periods of significant social unrest”.

Claims for Relief

California’s lawsuit presents three main claims:

1. Ultra Vires Action: The complaint alleges that the President and Secretary of Defense acted beyond their legal authority by federalizing the Guard without following the procedures and conditions in 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
2. Violation of the Tenth Amendment: The state argues that the federal government’s actions infringed upon powers reserved to the states, specifically the right to maintain and command its own militia in the absence of a valid federal invocation.
3. Administrative Procedure Act Violation: California alleges that the Department of Defense’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority, violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

In its prayer for relief, the state asks the court to declare the President’s memorandum and the Defense Department’s orders “unauthorized by and contrary to the laws of the United States,” to prohibit further deployment under these orders, and to return command of the National Guard to the Governor.

Legal and Practical Hurdles

While the complaint meticulously outlines California’s statutory and constitutional arguments, it must overcome significant legal barriers. Federal courts have long recognized the President’s broad discretion to determine when civil unrest or threats to federal law justify the use of military force, including the National Guard. The key statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, does not define the terms “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion,” leaving the threshold for federal action open to interpretation. The requirement that orders be issued “through the governors” has little modern judicial precedent, and courts may view it as a procedural step rather than a substantive check on presidential power.

Further complicating California’s case, the Supreme Court has recognized federal supremacy in national defense and emergencies, even when it comes at the expense of state authority. Any decision in this case could set new precedent on the limits of federal power and the procedural rights of states.

The Stakes

At issue is not only the immediate question of who controls the National Guard in moments of crisis, but also the long-term balance of power between states and the federal government. As the complaint itself concludes, “This Court should reject the unlawful attempt by Defendants to wrest away the State’s control of its own National Guard for improper and unjustified ends”.

The case is now pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as Case 3:25-cv-04870. The outcome could reshape the law on presidential emergency powers and state sovereignty for years to come.

All direct quotations and referenced facts are taken from the official complaint filed in Case 3:25-cv-04870, available through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

🔗 Follow USA Herald on X @RealUSAHerald