ICYMI: Bipartisan Former Governors, Retired Military Leaders, States, Cities File Briefs in Support of California’s Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Federalization of the National[...]

OAKLAND - Yesterday, organizations and individuals from across the nation filed amicus briefs in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of California's challenge to the Trump Administration's unlawful federalization of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California previously issued a temporary restraining order finding the federalization order illegal and returning control of the National Guard back to California Governor Gavin Newsom. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently stayed that order pending appeal.

Bipartisan coalition of former governors drawing on 178 years of collective experience serving as chief executives of their state and commander-in-chief of their state's National Guard :

"[F]ederal authorities' decision to federalize the California National Guard without consultation with California's governor disturbs the constitutional balance of state and federal authority, weakens state executives' authority to maintain intrastate law and order, deprives states of vital emergency response tools, and breaks with a long tradition of cooperation between the federal government and the states on issues of public safety."

California State Legislature:

"[T]he evidence shows that the regular forces were willing and able to safeguard the federal government's ability to execute federal law. When the President chose instead to make the California National Guard into his own federalized force, he did so under circumstances that Congress did not authorize."

"[T]here is nothing speculative about the State's injuries. When members of Taskforce Rattlesnake are unavailable to mitigate fire risk, wildfires become more likely to break out, and are more dangerous when they do. When members of the State's Counterdrug Taskforce are unavailable at the border, more fentanyl crosses the border. Indeed, since federalization, there has been a reported 57 percent decrease in fentanyl seized by CalGuard's Counterdrug Task Force along the border."

The Chamberlain Network, a network of thousands of veterans dedicated to combating polarization of the military, and veterans of the National Guard and Marine Corps:

"[S]ervicemembers join the military to serve their fellow Americans, not to police them. When called to military service as part of the federal armed forces, they expect to face an enemy of the United States, not to confront Americans who do not threaten the nation or constitutional order."

VetVoice Foundation, representing veterans, military families, and retired high-ranking military officers< /a>:

"Deferring too greatly to the executive in these matters risks the morale of military troops and the trust of military communities. Furthermore, it gravely undermines the reputation and integrity of the military as an institution, all of which can harm the military's effectiveness. While the President is the commander-in-chief, all branches of government have a role in ensuring the proper use of the military domestically."

Coalition of 21 attorneys general and the Governor of Kansas :

"By calling forth troops when there is no invasion to repel, no rebellion to suppress, and when state and local law enforcement are fully able to execute the laws, the President flouts the vision of our Founders, undermines the rule of law, and sets a chilling precedent that puts the constitutional rights of Americans everywhere at risk."

Coalition of cities and counties including the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angele s:

"The United States . . . is systematically and unlawfully deploying federalized forces of the National Guard to conduct both immigration operations and domestic law enforcement on American streets. Although Los Angeles was the first staging ground for this unprecedented assault on fundamental American values in violation of federal law, it did not stop there. Washington D.C., although separately situated and raising different legal issues, was next and in recent days, the President has repeatedly stated that he is going to send troops to Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, New York, and other cities around the country. He has threatened to do so without citing any reason necessitating that extraordinary action."

Local governments and local government leade rs:

"The forced presence of military troops on our streets inflames tensions, decreases the efficacy of local law enforcement, interrupts chains of command, and creates risks of tragic miscalculations, accidents, and increased violence."

21 sitting U.S. Senat ors:

"As part of a larger pattern of President Donald J. Trump usurping powers reserved for the States and Congress, this case raises one of the most important tests to date: can President Trump unilaterally deploy the National Guard on domestic soil at his whim in spite of myriad constitutional guardrails against such action?"

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians' constitutional rights. In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops and the Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In August, the Attorney General's Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Last week, the District Court granted an permanent injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. The District Court's order is temporary paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the federal government's motion for a stay.