In June 2025, California filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, challenging his decision to deploy 2,000–4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests that escalated into riots over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The state, led by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, argues that the federalization of the California National Guard without the governor’s consent violates state sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, the Trump administration defends the deployment, asserting that the president has clear legal authority to intervene when a governor’s failure to maintain order endangers public safety, particularly in matters involving federal law enforcement like immigration. This article examines the legal framework governing such actions, emphasizing the rule of law and the consequences of failing to uphold it.
The Legal Basis for California’s Lawsuit
California’s lawsuit hinges on two primary arguments. First, it claims that the federalization of the state’s National Guard, authorized under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, is unlawful because it lacks the governor’s consent and does not meet the statutory requirements of an “invasion” or “rebellion.” The state argues that the protests in Los Angeles, while marked by some violence (e.g., vehicles set on fire, projectiles thrown at ICE agents), were manageable by local law enforcement and did not constitute a rebellion or emergency justifying federal intervention. Second, California invokes the 10th Amendment, asserting that the deployment infringes on state sovereignty by commandeering a state-controlled resource—the National Guard—without proper justification [1].
The state’s position draws on historical precedent. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance, including National Guard deployment, to restore order [2]. California argues that such coordination is standard practice and that Trump’s unilateral action sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.
The President’s Authority to Deploy the Military
Under federal law, the president has significant authority to deploy military forces, including the National Guard, in specific circumstances, particularly when public safety is at risk. Two key statutes govern this power:
1. 10 U.S.C. § 12406: This law allows the president to federalize the National Guard to suppress rebellion, repel an invasion, or enforce federal laws when state authorities are unable or unwilling to do so [3]. The Trump administration argues that the violence in Los Angeles, including attacks on ICE agents enforcing federal immigration laws, justifies federalization. The statute’s language is broad, and terms like “rebellion” are not strictly defined, giving the president considerable discretion.
2. The Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255): This act permits the president to deploy federal troops or federalized National Guard units to suppress insurrections or domestic violence when state authorities cannot or will not protect public safety or enforce federal law [4]. While Trump has not formally invoked the Insurrection Act, his administration has referenced it, suggesting that the governor’s refusal to fully cooperate with ICE operations and manage the resulting unrest constitutes a failure to uphold federal law.
The president’s authority is particularly relevant when a governor’s actions—or inaction—endanger public safety. In this case, the Trump administration contends that Governor Newsom’s policies, including California’s sanctuary state laws (e.g., SB 54, which limits state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement [5]), have emboldened protests and contributed to violence against federal personnel. When ICE conducted raids in Los Angeles to detain undocumented immigrants, protests escalated, with reports of federal agents being targeted and federal property damaged. The administration argues that Newsom’s failure to deploy the state’s National Guard to protect federal interests necessitated federal intervention.
Legal precedent supports this view. In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce desegregation in Little Rock when Governor Orval Faubus refused to comply with federal court orders [6]. Similarly, in 1992, President George H.W. Bush deployed federal troops to Los Angeles after Governor Wilson’s request for assistance [2]. These cases illustrate that when state authorities fail to maintain order or uphold federal law, the president has the legal right—and, arguably, the duty—to act.
Immigration Enforcement and the Rule of Law
At the heart of this conflict is the enforcement of federal immigration law, a domain where the federal government holds supreme authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI) [7]. California’s sanctuary policies, while popular among some residents, have long been a point of contention with federal authorities. The Trump administration argues that these policies obstruct ICE’s ability to deport undocumented immigrants, leading to public safety risks when protests against enforcement actions turn violent.
When state officials fail to uphold federal law or allow conditions that jeopardize public safety, repercussions follow. The violence in Los Angeles, including attacks on federal agents, underscores the consequences of unchecked unrest. Federal law prioritizes the protection of federal personnel and property, and the president’s deployment of the National Guard aims to ensure that federal authority is respected. This is not about political posturing but about enforcing the law: when state actions undermine federal objectives, the executive branch has the tools to restore order.
Challenges to California’s Lawsuit
California faces significant hurdles in its lawsuit. Courts have historically granted the president broad deference in matters of public safety and national security, particularly when federal interests are at stake. The ambiguity of terms like “rebellion” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406 makes it difficult for California to prove that Trump’s actions were unlawful [3]. Additionally, reports of violence against ICE agents and damage to federal property provide a factual basis for the administration’s claim that local authorities were not adequately addressing the situation.
The 10th Amendment argument, while compelling to some, may not prevail. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources for federal purposes (e.g., Printz v. United States, 1997 [8]), but the National Guard operates in a dual state-federal capacity, and federalization is explicitly authorized by law. Unless California can demonstrate that the deployment was wholly unjustified or an abuse of power, courts are likely to uphold the president’s actions.
Conclusion: The Rule of Law Prevails
The clash between California and President Trump over the National Guard deployment in Los Angeles highlights the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. The president’s right to deploy military forces, including the National Guard, is firmly rooted in federal law, particularly when a governor’s policies or inaction endanger public safety or obstruct federal law enforcement. In this case, the violence stemming from protests over immigration enforcement justified federal intervention to protect federal personnel and property.
California’s lawsuit reflects a broader debate about state-federal relations, but the legal threshold for challenging the president’s authority is high. The rule of law demands that federal authority be respected, especially in matters of immigration, where the Constitution grants the federal government primacy. When state policies contribute to unrest, the president has the legal tools to act decisively. As this case unfolds, it serves as a reminder that actions—or inaction—have consequences, and the law provides mechanisms to address them.
Sources:
1. U.S. Constitution, Amendment X. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
2. Farber, D. A. (1992). “The 1992 Los Angeles Riots: A Legal and Historical Perspective.” Stanford Law Review.
3. 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
4. 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 (Insurrection Act). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-13
5. California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), California Values Act (2017). Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54
6. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/
7. U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
8. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/
Deep Thinking 