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.
