9th Circuit Crashes Newsoms Party After Emergency Ruling

Written by Published

In a recent legal development, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had issued a restraining order against President Trump's federalization of 4,000 California Army National Guard soldiers.

This order demanded that control of the Guard be returned to California. However, the appellate court's three-judge panel, which includes two appointees of President Trump, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, alongside Biden appointee Jennifer Sung, has paused the enforcement of Breyer's ruling pending further hearings.

According to RedState, this legal maneuver allows President Trump to maintain the deployment of the National Guard for a few additional days while the panel deliberates on the case. The decision prompted California Governor Gavin Newsom to swiftly remove a celebratory post from his social media account, highlighting the ongoing tension between state and federal authorities.

Judge Breyer's ruling was based on three primary legal arguments. Firstly, he contended that President Trump lacked legal justification, as the 1903 statute cited permits federalization only under specific conditions such as foreign invasion or rebellion, none of which were deemed applicable.

Secondly, procedural violations were noted, as federal law mandates that federalization orders be issued through state governors. The administration's claim of compliance by merely including "THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA" on orders not sent to Governor Newsom was dismissed by the court.

Lastly, Breyer argued that the federalization infringed upon the Tenth Amendment, unlawfully seizing control and hindering California's ability to utilize its Guard for essential state functions, including wildfire management and combating fentanyl trafficking.

This unfolding legal battle underscores the ongoing debate over state versus federal authority, a cornerstone of conservative values emphasizing limited government and state sovereignty. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal governments.