Governor Newsom Overplays His Hand: The 9th Circuit Lets the Federalized Guard Remain in Los Angeles

 As Blue State governors now know, President Trump is serious about deporting criminal aliens from the U.S. 

Earlier this month, federal agents were thwarted in their deportation efforts by rioters in Los Angeles who threw rocks at ICE agents, blocked highways, looted businesses, and vandalized federal buildings. In response, Trump federalized the California National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property.

Predictably, Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration and got a restraining order barring Trump from calling out the Guard. Judge CharlesBreyer, a federal district judge, ruled that Trump's mobilization order violated federal law and that Trump had not federalized the Guard "through" Governor Newsom as he was legally required to do.

Newsom v. Trump: The 9th Circuit Lets the Guard Remain in LA

Trump immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Yesterday, a three-judge panel issued a stay against Judge Breyer's order, allowing the California National Guard to remain in Los Angeles under President Trump's command--at least for the present.

Governor Newsom advanced two main arguments to support his position that Trump had illegally federalized the California National Guard. First, he maintained that Trump had not notified him before issuing the deployment order, rendering it unlawful.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, pointing out that Trump's mobilization order was issued to the California Adjutant General "through Governor Newsom." The court also ruled that President Trump was not required to obtain Governor Newsom's consent before federalizing the troops and deploying them to Los Angeles.

Second, Governor Newsom argued that Trump hadn't satisfied the statutory requirement for federalizing the Guard. Specifically, Newsom's lawyers maintained that the unrest in Los Angeles was not severe enough to justify calling out the National Guard.

Judge Breyer bought Newsom's argument, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Citing a 19th-century judicial precedent, a three-judge panel ruled  "that the President's determination that an exigency exists [should] be given significant deference.

 The panel went on to summarize the chaotic events on June 6 and 7:

There is evidence that . . . protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several FPS officers defending federal property by throwing concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects, and used large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building. Plaintiffs’ own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. [Internal punctuation omitted.]

These events, in the Ninth Circuit's view, justified Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard.

Implications

Governor Newsom's lawsuit to kick the federalized National Guard out of Los Angeles backfired on him. Thanks to the Ninth Circuit's preliminary opinion, we now know that President Trump can mobilize the Guard to protect federal officers and guard federal property without consulting a governor and without a governor's permission. Moreover, the courts are required to give the President's mobilization decision considerable deference.

Progressive municipalities across the United States proudly call themselves sanctuary cities, vowing not to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. In some instances, local officials have impeded federal officers. The Ninth Circuit decision may prompt Blue City mayors to reconsider their stance. 

If mayors and governors allow anti-ICE protests to get out of control, as Governor Newsom did, Trump will federalize the Guard. The Mayors of Chicago, Denver, and Boston should take note.

Los Angeles Anti-ICE riot. Image credit: New York Post

Mainly Peaceful? Mostly Peaceful? Largely Peaceful? Are Folks Rioting in the City of Angels?

 Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles have gone on for almost a week.  As Matt Taibbi pointed out in a recent blog, the legacy media have characterized these demonstrations as "mostly peaceful." Still, commentators avoid using that exact phrase because a CNN reporter was mocked for using it while standing before a burning building during the Minneapolis riot in 2020.

President Trump thinks the ruckus in Los Angeles is a riot, and he called out the National Guard and the Marines. Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass claim they have the protests under control and that Trump is overreacting.

Nevertheless, Mayor Bass imposed a curfew on downtown LA yesterday, acknowledging incidents of vandalism and looting. Protesters have set vehicles on fire and pelted local police with rocks and broken pieces of concrete. The anti-ICI crowd has stopped traffic on the 101 freeway. And then there are those Molotov cocktails.

I'd call that a riot. 

Whether President Trump should intervene to stop the rioting is another matter. Calling out 4,000 National Guard soldiers and a Marine battalion is a serious business, and most folks would rather local authorities deal with the civil unrest if they are capable of doing so.

Federal Judge Charles Breyer will rule on Governor Newsom's request for an injunction against federal intervention within the next few days.

My position from Flyover Country is to support President Trump. Violence, arson, and looting got entirely out of hand during the George Floyd riots of 2020--especially in Minneapolis and Seattle. Who wants a repeat of that season of discontent?

Today, Governor Greg Abbott mobilized the Texas National Guard in anticipation of planned anti-ICE demonstrations in San Antonio. That makes sense as well.  

The last thing this nation needs is for urban rioting to spread to other cities. Governor Newsom contends that the military presence in LA foments more violence. I don't think that's true.

What's a little rioting among friends?