By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Judge Charles Breyer ruled President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles illegal, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment and exceeding presidential authority. The order returns control of the California National Guard to the state, effective immediately. Breyer’s decision also highlighted threats to protesters’ First Amendment rights and the state’s inability to utilize the Guard for essential services. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling, while Governor Newsom warned of a broader threat to state sovereignty and democracy nationwide.
Read the original article here
A federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to California was illegal, ordering the return of oversight to the state’s governor. This decision, effective Friday, aims to end what many see as a troubling power grab. However, the anticipation of the order’s implementation is tinged with considerable uncertainty.
The immediate concern centers around whether Trump will comply with the court order. His history of disregarding legal rulings suggests a high probability of defiance. Appeals are expected, potentially delaying resolution for months and escalating the conflict through the appellate court system and possibly even the Supreme Court. The possibility of a Supreme Court ruling in Trump’s favor looms large, leaving the legality of the deployment in limbo for an extended period.
The potential for Trump to ignore the ruling altogether presents a serious constitutional challenge. His administration might attempt to argue that no official activation orders have been issued, creating a loophole to avoid compliance. This echoes previous instances where the administration employed stalling tactics to evade accountability. Such actions could trigger a significant constitutional crisis.
Governor Newsom faces the daunting task of regaining control amidst this uncertainty. His administration should proactively prepare for scenarios including Trump’s defiance, and develop strategies to defuse the situation swiftly and decisively, including the potential for direct confrontation between state and federal forces. Newsom might consider asserting state authority by ordering the California National Guard to remove federal troops, escalating the conflict but potentially enforcing the court’s ruling.
The judge’s ruling underscores the severity of the alleged power overreach. The deployment of National Guard troops without the state’s consent raises critical questions about the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. The core issue is one of federalism and the extent to which the executive branch can circumvent established legal processes.
The potential consequences of Trump’s non-compliance are far-reaching. The lack of immediate repercussions for past transgressions suggests a troubling lack of accountability. The possibility of a Supreme Court overturning the ruling underscores the political polarization of the legal system, further fueling concerns about the rule of law.
The involvement of other federal forces, such as the Marines and FBI, further complicates the situation. The deployment of multiple federal agencies without the state’s knowledge or consent exacerbates the perceived overreach of power and suggests a deliberate effort to circumvent state authority.
The role of Major General Matthew P. Beevers, commander of the California National Guard, is pivotal. The question of whether the Guard can legally refuse to obey unlawful orders from the federal government remains unresolved. His decision-making will significantly impact the unfolding events, necessitating a clear understanding of his legal obligations in this complex situation. The judge’s order necessitates his adherence to California’s authority.
Ultimately, this legal battle highlights a deeper issue: the erosion of trust in institutions and the increasing politicization of the military. The situation demands a careful consideration of the potential for further escalation and a proactive approach to safeguarding constitutional principles. The future trajectory depends heavily on the actions and decisions of all involved parties, including the courts, the state government, the military, and most critically, Donald Trump himself. The events of the coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining whether the rule of law will prevail, or if a dangerous precedent will be set.