California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the June 2025 deployment of National Guard troops and potentially Marines to LA, accusing the move of violating constitutional limits on federal authority.
Here’s a breakdown of all the reasons Newsom cites for daily declaring the deployment unlawful:
Bypassing State Authority
Newsom argues the federal government bypassed standard channels by “commandeering” California’s National Guard without his request or consent. Under Title 10, deployments must be issued through governors—but California’s governor received no official notice or approval request.
Violation of State Sovereignty (Tenth Amendment)
Newsom’s lawsuit asserts the deployment infringes on the constitutional principle that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. Federalizing the Guard without state consent, he says, is an “unlawful act, immoral act, unconstitutional act” and “a serious breach of state sovereignty”.
Misuse of Statutory Authority (Title 10 §12406)
The statute invoked allows federal deployment only in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when “regular forces” cannot enforce federal law, none of which apply to peaceful immigration protests. The law’s language requires involvement of state governors, a step skipped here.
Newsom’s lawsuit asserts the deployment infringes on the constitutional principle that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. Federalizing the Guard without state consent, he says, is an “unlawful act, immoral act, unconstitutional act” and “a serious breach of state sovereignty”.
Misuse of Statutory Authority (Title 10 §12406)
The statute invoked allows federal deployment only in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when “regular forces” cannot enforce federal law, none of which apply to peaceful immigration protests. The law’s language requires involvement of state governors, a step skipped here.
Posse Comitatus & Civilian Rule
Deploying military personnel against civilians risks violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of active-duty troops in domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked—which it has not been.
Deploying military personnel against civilians risks violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of active-duty troops in domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked—which it has not been.
Politically Motivated Escalation
Newsom maintains the move is intentionally provocative and designed to heighten tensions rather than restore order. He says it was “designed to inflame the situation,” set without coordination, diverting state resources from real emergencies.
Precedent Avoidance
This marks one of the first instances in 60 years where a president has federalized a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request. Newsom points to past uses under Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower, all invoked at the request of governors, highlighting the exceptional nature of Trump’s unilateral move.
California’s lawsuit asks the court to rescind the deployment, return National Guard control to the state, and block further federal troop mobilizations, especially the pending 700 Marines.
If you’re overwhelmed, furious, or just trying to figure out what to do next, I hope you’ll download The Resistance Manual: How to Stand Up Without Burning Out.
I’m offering the PDF free of charge to anyone who needs it. Because the fight is real, and you don’t have to do it alone.
