California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have asked a federal court to stop the Trump Administration from federalizing and deploying California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, arguing the move exceeds federal authority and violates longstanding limits on using troops in domestic settings. The state cites recent rulings from the Northern District of California and the Ninth Circuit that keep the legal fight active, while the federal government has already moved to federalize guardsmen for deployments in Oregon and Illinois. At issue is whether 10 U.S.C. § 12406 permits sustained federal control of state guards and whether such federalization can be used to position troops inside American cities. The filings seek a preliminary injunction to return control of the guards to the governor and to block any deployment in the Los Angeles area through Election Day.
Newsom and Bonta filed their motion after a District Court initially stayed state proceedings on September 9, citing jurisdictional questions. The Ninth Circuit later clarified the lower court does have jurisdiction on October 29, which reopened the procedural pathway for California’s challenge. The state argues the stay should be lifted so the court can rule on whether the federalization order is lawful. The motion asks the court to return the California National Guard to state command and to block any enforced deployment within Los Angeles.
The state’s legal team emphasizes statutory limits on federal power, arguing that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 does not authorize the federalization and military occupation of American cities. That statutory claim is central to the request for emergency relief. California insists the Guard’s traditional role is to serve state communities under gubernatorial control, not to become a standing federal force inside major cities. The argument frames the federal move as a dangerous expansion of executive power.
Attorney General Bonta framed the suit as a defense of constitutional boundaries and of the Guard’s relationship with communities. “The Trump Administration believes it can keep California’s National Guard federalized and deployed wherever, forever, and for any purpose — no further justification necessary,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That is just not true, and we’re asking the court to issue a ruling that says as much without delay. The Ninth Circuit’s recent order made clear that this remains a live issue, and we are confident that when we make our case, we will prevail.”
2025-10-31 [207] Mtn to Lift Stay and Supp PI by scott.mcclallen
Governor Newsom issued a forceful public statement directly challenging federal tactics and the treatment of Guard members. “President Trump turned the National Guard against the communities they swore to serve. This is unlawful and immoral,” said Governor Newsom.“Under state direction, California National Guard members have always been deployed in support of our communities – acting as surge medical staff in crises, helping with wildfire management, supporting fentanyl interdiction, and now, as the President withholds food stamps from hungry families, the Guard is distributing food to those in need. The National Guard deserves better than being treated like Trump’s toy soldiers – and when they’re returned to California command, we’ll get them back to doing the real work they signed up to do.”
The state points to a string of earlier rulings and filings that shaped the dispute. In June, California challenged the federal orders that sought to federalize the Guard and to use troops for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles, contending the Posse Comitatus Act and other limits prohibit such use. A District Court initially granted emergency relief returning command of the Guard to the governor, and that relief was then stayed by the Ninth Circuit while appeals proceed. The back-and-forth in the courts has made the legal posture complicated and fast-moving.
Beyond California, the federal government has already federalized National Guard forces for deployments in other states, including Oregon and Illinois in recent weeks. Those movements have intensified the legal stakes and prompted parallel actions by other state attorneys general. In one instance, Bonta joined Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield to ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for emergency relief, and the district court issued an order blocking redeployment of federalized California guardsmen to Portland.
The motion currently before the Northern District seeks a preliminary injunction to halt any deployment of California National Guard troops in the Los Angeles area and to restore state control. If the court grants the injunction, it would immediately curtail the federal government’s ability to keep those troops under federal command for local operations. If the court denies relief, the dispute will likely continue up the appeals ladder, where statutory interpretation and separation of powers questions will be tested further.
The case raises broader questions about the balance between federal authority and state control of organized militia forces, especially when domestic deployments intersect with law enforcement and civil operations. California frames its position as protecting communities and the Guard’s tradition of state service, while the federal government frames its actions as within executive authority for national security and public order. Courts now must reconcile those competing claims against the language of federal statutes and constitutional constraints.
