On Tuesday, oleaginous California Governor Gavin Newsom took time out from podcasting to ask a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the President of the United States.
President Trump, the toothy state chief executive claimed, might be able to federalize the National Guard and send Marines into a city in his state, but he'd best not take it into his head that they could take up law enforcement duties, like accompanying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on any of their raids. Newsom wanted a TRO from the court by 1 p.m. to preclude Trump from sending his federal military hounds out.
The judge didn't see eye to eye on the governor's rush.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is asking a federal judge for a restraining order that blocks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering National Guard troops and Marines to support immigration raids in Los Angeles.
“They must be stopped, immediately,” attorneys for the state wrote in a filing Tuesday. The request, submitted around 11 a.m. local time Tuesday, urged U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to act within two hours.
Shortly before 2 p.m., Breyer indicated he would not act on the state’s timeline. Instead, he gave the Trump administration 24 hours it had sought to respond, and he set a hearing on the matter for Thursday afternoon.
The state’s urgent plea came as Newsom and other California officials continued to assail Trump’s order to “federalize” 4,000 members of the state’s National Guard for a mission to protect federal immigration facilities and personnel amid street protests. The state sued Monday to block that effort as well as Hegseth’s subsequent deployment of 700 Marines to assist the National Guard effort.
The restraining order request, however, is focused explicitly on a growing expectation among California officials that those troops will soon be sent on arrest missions alongside agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement — raising the likelihood of direct confrontations with L.A. residents.
Judge Breyer (brother of the SCOTUS justice) was reasonable enough to grant the Trump administration 24 hours to put a response to the filing together. Then he scheduled a hearing on both sides today.
Also yesterday, eight former military service secretaries, retired admirals, and generals filed an amicus brief with the court for the state. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I didn't see Milley's name on it, but I figure he's trying to keep his pension at the level it is right now.
What a sterling lineup.
Admiral Steve Abbot, Admiral Thad Allen, Former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, General Walton W. Fulford, Jr., General Michael Hayden, Admiral Samuel Jones Locklear, III, Former Secretary of the Navy Sean O’Keefe, and Admiral Bill Owens respectfully move for leave to appear as amici curiae and to file the proposed brief, attached hereto.
The CA filing is also wrapped around the axle with Trump not yet invoking the Insurrection Act. They've completely ignored the very proper statute (Title 10) that the president did use.
...That argument earned the endorsement of two former service secretaries and six retired four-star admirals and generals on Wednesday night. In a court filing, the former leaders, who have collectively served each president from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, argued that because Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act or clearly define the role of the troops, the deployment “poses multiple risks to the core mission of the National Guard and the Marines, and to the well-being of the troops.” They add that the deployment risks “inappropriately politicizing the military.”
The Trump team submitted their brief yesterday, as well, and it is truly a thing of beauty. Naturally, it makes crystal clear that Newsom's legal assault is without merit.
...The Trump legal team offers the opposite interpretation of the government code: “The statute is thus clear that the orders are issued by the President, and they are conveyed through State officials. Nothing in the statute entitles a Governor to veto or impede a valid presidential order,” the team wrote in their filing on Wednesday.
The filing excoriated Newsom’s pitch for a restraining order as a “crass political stunt endangering American lives.” It also said local and state law enforcement were “unable to bring order to the city”
Levinson underscored the stakes of the case: “Saying that you need the governor’s consent would mean that any single governor would have the ability to essentially veto the president using power under this statute.”
The government points out specifically in the statute that there is no mention of a governor at all, let alone a president needing permission to act.
7/ Excellent point: If anyone violated the statute it was Newsom! pic.twitter.com/PCIVyNujVW
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 11, 2025
In fact, one former US Attorney following the thread said the Trump administration followed the Title 10 guidance 'perfectly.'
And there was one absolute gem that Professor Cleveland pulled out from the Trump filing. The single sentence positively radiates in the middle of all of the faux outrage and posturing by the Democrats and their toadies as their storm troops begin to crash and burn their way through the summer.
THERE IS NO RIOTERS' VETO TO ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW
Oh, hell, yeah. I voted for this.
There is no more 'space to destroy.'
As we enter the 2025 Democrat riot season, remember that this is the tenth year we've had to endure such a thing. It was 10 years ago that the communist mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, ordered police to give rioters space to destroy in the city she governed. pic.twitter.com/RNZjl0SoMa
— marshalld (@MarshallDActual) June 10, 2025
There is no more retreat.
LA County Supervisor Janice Hahn (center) told KNX News that ICE is the one “inciting these kinds of protests and riots” and the federal government should “back off”
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 9, 2025
She’s backing the rioters who are torching cars and throwing rocks at federal agents pic.twitter.com/d0uwho3u6t
No more ending anything to appease rioters and make lawbreakers comfortable again.
Stop the raids.
— Mayor Karen Bass (@MayorOfLA) June 10, 2025
There is a real fear in Los Angeles right now. Parents, workers, grandparents, young people scared to go about their daily lives.
We are a city of immigrants.
Washington is attacking our people, our neighborhoods and our economy. pic.twitter.com/dBHaHC7Yzz
It is OVER.
...L.A.’s illegal-alien riots have provided Trump with a picture-perfect opportunity to deliver on his central campaign promises: the era of tolerating arson, looting, destruction of property, and attacks on law enforcement is over; the era of enabling endemic immigration lawlessness is over. And that picture-perfect opportunity has filled the Democratic establishment with impotent rage.
Here's hoping Judge Breyer sees it that way, too, in a couple of hours.
Beege UPDATE: Well, the hearing has started, and holy crap, it's not going well. Judge Breyer let the Trump side go first and put them through a repeated ringer, rephrasing questions.
Now Newsom's boys have the floor, and what on Earth - is a monarchy a thing now with these Lefties? Prof Cleveland's live Xweeting a remarkable exchange.
15/ Newsom: The version of executive power to police civilian city is breathtaking and dangerous conception of federal power. Statute is asking a factual decision and so a court can look at that.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 12, 2025
Judge: If statute says president can appoint when there's a vacancy, can president…
...Judge: If statute says president can appoint when there's a vacancy, can president merely declare a vacancy. If he finds there's a rebellion there is a rebellion. I try to distinguish what a monarchy does. We live in response to a monarchy. Line-drawing is necessary.
Me: This is ridiculous. If judge wants to reach a decision, he needed to allow DOJ to make alternative argument that facts met but Judge cut him off.
I'm not even going to guess where he's going with this.
MORE: Good gravy goodness.
17/ Judge: I have to look at record and make a determination on record before me which is why I'm concerned about talking about the Marines. Because I'm not sure what they'll do.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 12, 2025
DOJ: You are not merely asked to decide merits but to countermand the President's authority.
Judge:…
16/You said Marines "might" do this, but there is no evidence they have done these things that are prohibited. And president when he evoked the authority, not invoking exception to Posse Act (the Insurrection Act). I don't understand how I can do anything about the Marines. Newsom: We understand Marines will be replacing National Guards. That 700 Marines are made ready that is enough to show injury is certainly impending.
Judge: Seems to me that circumstances and court orders will dictate how people will behave. So whatever order I issue, I assume will be followed and that might impact conduct in the future. But I have a hard time reaching out saying you can't do this or that. Seems speculative and a view of future and not what is presently done.
Newsom: There is a PCA (Posse Act) violation as to Guard right now. It is enforcing the law right now as they are federalized. Regardless of whether federalized was lawful it is unlawful under PCA.
Judge: I am prepared to answer whether Guard is properly federalized. DOJ:
Newsom wants a TRO to go outside of federal property to participate in immigration raids. 22-4 Declaration under orders simply to protect federal property and federal personal) Paragraph 7: Limited to those operation. NOT performing law enforcement or other functions. What they want to enjoin is leaving federal buildings to participate in ICE raids.
Judge: Strikes me facing issues fully briefed and argued that I must make a decision whether properly federalized.
DOJ: If it is a violating, it is a procedural way, we can send the papers to fix it.
Judge: If it is unauthorized, we can't overlook. If you start looking at "where we go from here" court becomes almost a party. I have to make sure laws are faithfully executed. (Me: No, that is Trump's duty.) Depends in part on the situation on the ground.
17/...Because I'm not sure what they'll do.
DOJ: You are not merely asked to decide merits but to countermand the President's authority.
Judge: They are saying they will protect federal officials, but governor is in charge.
DOJ: Must balance equity. If you are going to enter TRO, make it a Preliminary Injunction and a stay pending an appeal for 48 hours.
Newsom: We don't have a position on TRO or PI, we don't object to a PI. We object to a stay pending of appeal, this is ongoing urgency. Docket 39-1 he claims it is domestic enforcement.
Judge: I will have an order out very soon, hopefully today.
Welp: It's over, and Professor Cleveland got the same impression I did.
Gotta believe all the references to King George and monarchs were like a "Right On!" to the "No Kings" protests on Saturday.
— Harry MacDougald (@HarryMacD) June 12, 2025
Ron Coleman, as dear a man as you will ever meet and a damn fine lawyer, had a word of caution for Hizzoner:
Even a hack like Breyer must realize what a minefield he's about to step in
Not if he wants his 15 minutes of fame knocking down the king, he doesn't.
Beege UPDATES: Well, we all saw this coming after that hearing.
BREAKING Judge orders Trump to return control of National Guard to California: ruling pic.twitter.com/BrkZLenWoN
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 13, 2025
Okay. What happens now?
Prof Cleveland says there's an appeal already filed and a stay until tomorrow.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Called. It. Judge enjoined Trump from deploying National Guard to L.A. and Defendants (which includes President TRUMP) to return control to Newsom. Stays order until tomorrow noon. Appeal already filed. 1/ pic.twitter.com/3pwaFlgpFj
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 13, 2025
Unfrickin' believable.
But completely believable.
MIDNIGHT DRAMA: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government's request and issued an emergency stay.
...On Thursday evening, the government's emergency motion led to a temporary stay by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the district court's restraining order with a response due June 15, reply due June 16, and Zoom hearing scheduled for June 17. The 9th's order said: "The court has received the government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The request for an administrative stay is GRANTED. The district court’s June 12, 2025 temporary restraining order is temporarily stayed pending further order."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member