(The Center Square) – Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has filed an amicus brief in support of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s legal effort to prevent President Donald Trump from deploying the state’s National Guard to protect federal property and personnel.
The amicus brief, signed by 20 other state attorneys general, argues that Trump lacks the basis to deploy California’s National Guard under the federal statute evoked, and could lead to other state’s National Guard being deployed as well.
In a June 7 memo, Trump argued that continued violence toward federal officers and property are inhibiting their ability to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and “constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” The memo also states that the 4,000 National Guard units will be used “to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property.” Their deployment lasts 60 days.
The memo justifies the act under a federal statute that states the following: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
In response, Newsom sought an immediate temporary restraining order to prevent Trump from deploying them, but a federal judge ruled against it in favor of a scheduled court hearing on Thursday. The Department of Justice has described Newsom’s lawsuit as a “crass political stunt.”
In his amicus brief, Brown claims that “in Los Angeles, the President’s deployment has dramatically worsened the situation on the ground. As a result, local law enforcement may be required to respond to incidents of violence that may otherwise never have occurred.”
“In short, President Trump’s invocation of the statute here—to call forth armed National Guard soldiers and entangle them in protests that local law enforcement is able to manage, is contrary to the purpose of the militia and tradition of restraint in their use,” the amicus states further. “And that President Trump mobilized the National Guard over the objection of California’s Governor is utterly unprecedented in our history.”
While the amicus observes that the federal statute evoked has only been used twice by prior presidents, it also acknowledges that presidents have taken control of state National Guard against the wishes of the state governor in the past, including the enforcement of desegregation orders and in the 1950s and 1960s.
Brown has been heavily involved either directly or indirectly with litigation against Trump. Among the legal challenges include:
A lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.
A lawsuit against Trump’s executive order reducing funding for medical institutions that perform gender-affirming procedures on children.
A filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s Executive Order 14248, which aimed to overhaul federal election rules.
A lawsuit against Trump’s “national energy emergency” executive order fossil fuel project permits.
A lawsuit challenging Trump’s cuts to National Science Foundation programs, particularly those supporting diversity in STEM and research funding.A lawsuit challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ cuts to public health programs.
Brown’s office has also joined more than a dozen other lawsuits filed against the Trump administration.
