Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSubstack from Joyce Vance IE National Guard not really under potus's contnrol: NO links: email
Except thats not exactly what the opinion said. The Ninth Circuit issued an emergency stay of Judge Breyers order, the order that returned control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. The basis for their decision was more limited than the governments broad claims of presidential power. They focused on the likelihood that Trump would prevail on his claim that he could use the third prong of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize the National Guard. That provision isnt about a rebellion on the streets that state and local officials cant quell. It authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. So the result is the one the administration sought, but its not the all out decree of greater power that they sought.
Although this is a win for Trump, the panel disagreed with him on a key issue. Trump argued the courts have no ability to review his decision about whether to federalize the Guard. The panel wrote, We disagree with Defendants primary argument that the Presidents decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review. They ruled in his favor, they explained, because they were persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential. But they didnt remove the judicial branch from the chessboard, as Trump had wanted them to do. Instead, they noted that under the caselaw, courts may at least review the Presidents determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. That language would seem to be a warning to the president not to overstep. But based on his social media post, it went unheard.
The panel was not impressed by Californias argument that Trump had to seek Governor Newsoms permission, or at least advise him of the decision, before federalizing the Guard. The Secretary of Defenses transmittal of the order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guardwho is authorized under California law to issue all orders in the name of the Governor, likely satisfied the statutes procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued through the Governor. They concluded that even if bypassing the governor was a procedural violation, it would not have justif[ied] the scope of relief provided by the district courts TRO.
Although this is a win for Trump, the panel disagreed with him on a key issue. Trump argued the courts have no ability to review his decision about whether to federalize the Guard. The panel wrote, We disagree with Defendants primary argument that the Presidents decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review. They ruled in his favor, they explained, because they were persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential. But they didnt remove the judicial branch from the chessboard, as Trump had wanted them to do. Instead, they noted that under the caselaw, courts may at least review the Presidents determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. That language would seem to be a warning to the president not to overstep. But based on his social media post, it went unheard.
The panel was not impressed by Californias argument that Trump had to seek Governor Newsoms permission, or at least advise him of the decision, before federalizing the Guard. The Secretary of Defenses transmittal of the order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guardwho is authorized under California law to issue all orders in the name of the Governor, likely satisfied the statutes procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued through the Governor. They concluded that even if bypassing the governor was a procedural violation, it would not have justif[ied] the scope of relief provided by the district courts TRO.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Substack from Joyce Vance IE National Guard not really under potus's contnrol: NO links: email (Original Post)
lindysalsagal
Jun 20
OP
hlthe2b
(110,629 posts)1. The CA AG clearly stated that "this is not over" and plans further action; Did Vance address what steps
are available to him on appeal and what strategy he's likely to take, given that there are two courts involved now and ultimately the appeals will go to SCOTUS at some point?
Gore1FL
(22,547 posts)2. It's on her substack.
lindysalsagal
(22,716 posts)3. thanks