The legal storm in California has taken center stage in a deeper constitutional struggle — the balance of power between the federal government and the states. California’s federal lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully deploying National Guard troops without the governor’s approval has ignited a pivotal debate over executive authority and states’ rights.
On June 9 and 10, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit and emergency motion demanding Judge Charles Breyer block the deployment of nearly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid immigration protests. The state asserts this action violated Section 12406 of Title 10, which requires a governor’s “consent” to federalize state Guard troops—terms the state contends were disregarded.
Bonta denounced the federal move as an “unnecessary escalation” that could inflame tensions and destabilize public trust. He emphasized that state law enforcement was effectively managing protests and that federal militarization risked “a dangerous erosion of civil authority”.
At the heart of the dispute lies the 10th Amendment, reserving unenumerated powers to the states, and Section 12406, permitting federal activation only in cases such as invasion, rebellion, or the inability to enforce federal law. The California suit argues none of these conditions were met and calls the deployment an overreach akin to commandeering the state’s militia.
ACLU’s Hina Shamsi described the use of military force on civilians as a “dangerous abuse of power,” warning that the president appears to be “writing himself a blank check” to federalize troops nationwide.
This case marks the first unilateral activation of a state's National Guard since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized Alabama troops to enforce civil rights laws—without gubernatorial approval. More often, presidents rely on the broader Insurrection Act, last used in 1992, or require formal state requests.
Section 12406 has been invoked only once before in peacetime — by Nixon during the 1970 postal strike. Critics argue that deploying it for immigration-related protests stretches the statute far beyond its original narrow intent.