(DailyChive.com) – California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles, setting up a major constitutional clash over states’ rights versus federal authority.
At a Glance
- Governor Newsom is suing President Trump for deploying approximately 700 National Guard troops to Los Angeles without state consent
- The lawsuit claims Trump’s invocation of Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code is unconstitutional and unlawful
- The federal deployment comes in response to protests against ICE raids targeting undocumented residents
- California officials argue the deployment requires governor approval and leaves the state vulnerable to natural disasters
- Legal concerns include potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Tenth Amendment
Constitutional Showdown Unfolds
President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard has ignited a high-stakes legal battle with Governor Gavin Newsom. The administration deployed around 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles along with National Guard troops in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented residents. Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows federalization of state forces without a governor’s request under certain circumstances.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed for a restraining order against the National Guard deployment, arguing that such actions require the governor’s consent. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, contends that Trump’s actions violate constitutional principles regarding the separation of powers between federal and state governments.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state is suing the Trump administration, claiming President Donald Trump illegally federalized the National Guard to confront protesters in Los Angeles. https://t.co/26p0S50Sfg pic.twitter.com/Qbz6qlh0Lr
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) June 9, 2025
Legal Arguments and Implications
The California lawsuit raises serious concerns about potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement, and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. Governor Newsom has forcefully argued that there was no communication or consultation about the deployment, calling the president’s actions an unprecedented federal overreach that undermines California’s sovereignty.
State officials further contend that the deployment leaves California vulnerable to natural disasters, as National Guard units typically respond to wildfires, floods, and other emergencies. Trump has reportedly planned to deploy up to 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, significantly impacting the state’s emergency response capabilities.
Trump’s federalization of the CA National Guard under 10 USC § 12406 is illegal.
The law requires that orders be issued “through the Governors of the States.” Gov @GavinNewsom has not issued the orders.
Guard troops in LA are following unlawful orders. https://t.co/XTKHNt2qsY https://t.co/5oTR5fkZN1
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) June 9, 2025
Escalating Tensions Over Immigration
The conflict stems from fundamentally different approaches to immigration enforcement. Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan previously suggested that officials who obstruct federal immigration raids could face arrest, which some interpreted as a threat against Newsom. This prompted the governor to publicly challenge Homan to arrest him, further inflaming tensions between California and the administration.
Homan later clarified that his words were taken out of context and denied threatening to arrest the governor. Meanwhile, Newsom maintains that California does cooperate with ICE on criminal matters but objects to raids targeting non-criminal undocumented residents. The dispute highlights the ongoing friction between federal immigration priorities and state sovereignty.
Gov. Newsom sues Trump admin over federalization of California National Guard https://t.co/v8lzwLV93i
— One America News (@OANN) June 10, 2025
Political and Constitutional Significance
The case has landed in the Northern District of California, where most judges are Democratic appointees, potentially giving California an advantageous venue. Beyond the immediate legal questions, this lawsuit represents a significant test of federalism and presidential authority. The outcome could establish important precedents regarding when and how a president can federalize state National Guard units over a governor’s objections.
As protests continue in Los Angeles, the legal battle raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between states and the federal government. Constitutional scholars are closely watching this case, as it may clarify the limits of presidential authority in deploying military forces domestically during periods of civil unrest when state and federal officials disagree about the appropriate response.
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
