More Serious Matters

What's the over/under on how long it takes a Federal judge to tell the President he can't deploy the National Guard in California?

Here's the relevant law. The NYT seems to think that provision (2) is the important one, but I'd think it was (3). The Federal government deployed regular law enforcement and found them attacked by big mobs in LA; thus, they are not able to execute the laws of the United States with the regular forces assigned to that. You don't have to go as far as "rebellion," although riots and rebellions are matters of degree rather than kind. 

So, probably today a judge will step in? Maybe not until tomorrow, since today is a Sunday?

4 comments:

E Hines said...

Eisenhower's EO 10730, whereby he federalized Arkansas' national guard and reinforced them with a deployment of elements of the 101st Airborne, demonstrates that all that's necessary is an acknowledgment that regular law enforcement is unable to enforce court orders, State laws (in Arkansas' case), or Federal laws.

Not even Faubus went as far overboard and hysterical as Newsom and Bass are now.

Eric Hines

Anonymous said...

By noon tomorrow, because they might wait until the courts open in CA (PDT), and then they have to present the petition for stay/injunction. I’m pretty sure trying to get a court in DC or PR to do it would be slapped down by the SCotUS again.

(I agree with Eric that the leg upon which Newsom et al are standing is pretty weak, but someone will try it.)

LittleRed1

Christopher B said...

Via Powerline, the NYT reports the suit has been filed

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/09/us/la-protests-immigration-ice-trump

Texan99 said...

The TRO was denied, which of course doesn't necessarily mean that a preliminary injunction will be denied as well, after a hearing. Still, it's something, in California. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/los-angeles-protests-live-updates-judge-denies-newsom-s-request-to-immediately-block-trump-s-troop-deployment/ar-AA1GjwOl