I don't think so, fella
/
CHARLES BREYER, D.O.B. NOVEMBER 3 1941. HIS PORTRAIT, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY GROSSLY OUTDATED, WOULD SEEM TO STILL CAPTURE THE PERSONALITY OF THIS SMUG OCTOGENARIAN
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited’
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to “return control” of thousands of National Guard troops that had deployed to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots to the state of California.
Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer issued the order after hearing arguments from attorneys for Trump’s Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations.
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not,” Breyer wrote in his order.
“His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”
Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ’s Civil Division, disputed Breyer’s characterization of the president’s order throughout the 70-minute hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had “delegated” the federalizing of the Guard through California’s adjutant general, as legally required.
Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a “conduit” for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard.
“There’s no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,” he argued. “There’s one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.”
The underlying statute that Trump invoked permits a president to call up the National Guard when threatened by an invasion of a foreign nation, “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or if law enforcement is unable “to execute the laws of the United States.”
Breyer’s line of questioning focused on how orders for the federalization of National Guard forces “shall be issued through the governors of the States.”
While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump’s order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown.
“I don’t understand how I’m supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,” the judge responded, quibbling with Espiritu over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out “very soon.”
In a brief filed with the California court before the hearing, the Justice Department stated: “Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation. Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either.”
CONTRA, JUDGE BREYER:
When the federal government took control: The last time troops were deployed without a state’s request
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) - In 1965, the federal government made a rare and decisive move. It sent National Guard troops into Alabama — not by invitation, but by federal order.
President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect marchers traveling from Selma to Montgomery. The deployment came after Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to ensure the demonstrators’ safety, despite a federal court order affirming their right to march.
Barry McNeely, historian at the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, said the moment laid bare the limits of state authority when challenged by the federal government.
“When we think of Alabama, outside of the Selma to Montgomery March and Bloody Sunday, probably one of the most iconic things from the civil rights movement was when George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama,” McNeely said. “That was performative. They both knew where the power lay in that situation. Wallace wanted to make a political scene, even though he didn’t have the authority to usurp the federal government.”
Once the court upheld the demonstrators’ right to march, federal troops were mobilized under presidential command. The National Guard, no longer under Wallace’s control, escorted the marchers to the steps of the state capitol.
“It would have been ludicrous to assume they would’ve had safe passage without that intervention,” McNeely said.
The federal action was grounded in the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the president to deploy troops if a state obstructs the enforcement of federal law. But it was also a clear exercise of constitutional supremacy.
“These are the moments when federal and state governments have to work together,” McNeely said. “And sometimes they don’t agree. But in any argument between the two, the federal government is going to win out. That’s the Supremacy Clause.”
McNeely said the decision wasn’t just about politics or precedent — it was about public safety.
“There were long days and nights ahead on the road to Montgomery,” he said. “And the President had to consider not just his party or political allies, but how to protect people’s lives.”
This wasn’t the first time a president used federal power to overrule a state. President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to enforce school integration. President John F. Kennedy placed the National Guard on standby during protests in Birmingham.
“Johnson simply followed the pattern of federal power being used when state leaders refused to act,” McNeely said.
