New York Attorney General Letitia James and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong are among the 21 state attorneys general along with the governor of Kansas that filed an amicus brief in Federal District Court in San Francisco supporting California’s lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s taking control of California National Guard troops. The judge hearing the case ruled on June 12 that Trump must return control of the troops to California’s governor. The Trump Administration quickly went to an appeals court, which put the decision on hold, allowing Trump to retain control of the National Guard for the time being.
An amicus brief sometimes is called a “friend of the court” brief.
Trump federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard troops without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Newsom filed suit to try to stop it. California’s lawsuit also challenges Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines in Los Angeles.
The amicus brief said that what Trump did by taking control of the state’s National Guard troops is unlawful and should immediately be halted. Trump sent the troops to Los Angeles as protests continued against actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
“President Trump’s federalization and deployment of California’s National Guard, without the consent of California’s Governor and in clear violation of the statute on which he relies, is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic,” the brief said. “It is also wholly inconsistent with one of our nation’s founding principle that freedom depends on the subordination of the military to civilian authority.”
The signatories of the amicus brief told the court that on June 7, President Trump issued a memorandum ordering the deployment of the National Guard to respond to the protests against ICE in Los Angeles. The protests followed a dramatic increase in ICE arrests at immigration courts and raids on business locations where immigrants work. Trump’s order was issued without the consent of Newsom and remained in effect over his explicit objections. The amicus brief argued that under the Constitution and federal law, governors serve as the commanders-in-chief of their state’s National Guard. The brief pointed out that a president cannot federalize and deploy the National Guard unless specific, limited conditions are met.
“States rely on their National Guard units to protect their residents and save lives,” the brief said. “National Guard troops fight fires, respond to hurricanes, protect their residents from flooding, and provide much-needed security. By undermining states’ authority, unlawfully deploying the National Guard troops, and leaving the door wide open to deploy the Guards of every state, the president has made us all less safe. This court should enjoin the federal government from continuing down this unlawful and perilous path.”
James, Tong and the other signatories of the brief also argued that the National Guard’s presence has dramatically worsened the situation on the ground in Los Angeles and that the deployment of military personnel in California has stoked fears that the same will happen throughout the nation. The attorneys general highlighted the broad scope of the president’s memorandum, which is not limited to California and leaves open the possibility of federalizing any state’s National Guard over the next 60 days.
During a June 12 hearing on the lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, the Justice Department argued that Trump has the authority to deploy both the National Guard troops and the Marines.
Joining James and Tong in filing the amicus brief were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the governor of Kansas.
