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
I`m calling
out YOU:
MAGA repugs,
complicit
MSM,
+ corporate
sycophants
And how many
times can a
man turn his
head, and
pretend that
he just
doesn`t see?

STUPID
is
as
TSF
Does
An island of
Sanity
In a sea of
Insanity


Mirt!
Mirt!
Mirt!
Thank you
for taking
out the
dirt!

AMERICA
LOVE IT
OR
FIX IT

Check out
all the stickies
on Grovelbot's
Big Board!

BumRushDaShow

(158,594 posts)
Mon Aug 11, 2025, 07:23 AM Aug 11

The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom

Source: CNN Politics

PUBLISHED Aug 10, 2025, 10:02 PM ET


Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor.

In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can’t enforce US laws.

The president’s lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn’t engage in any law enforcement activities.

Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump’s lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn’t provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/10/us/california-newsom-trump-national-guard

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Aug 11 OP
Umm... OldBaldy1701E Aug 11 #1
There have been instances of troop/guard use in cities in the past BumRushDaShow Aug 11 #2
Yes, but... OldBaldy1701E Aug 11 #3
They are "claiming" it is done to "protect the federal buildings" BumRushDaShow Aug 11 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author thesquanderer Aug 11 #5
Kick Hekate Aug 11 #6

OldBaldy1701E

(8,760 posts)
1. Umm...
Mon Aug 11, 2025, 08:10 AM
Aug 11

Wouldn't this be a criminal case? They are ignoring the Constitution, if not blatantly defying it.

Or... maybe all this legal showmanship is just that? And, we need something... stronger... to express our refusal to go along with this?

Maybe.

BumRushDaShow

(158,594 posts)
2. There have been instances of troop/guard use in cities in the past
Mon Aug 11, 2025, 09:04 AM
Aug 11

(although 45 and his sycophants pretty much refused to give the go-ahead for the Guard to come in to assist during the Jan. 6 insurrection as his mobs were trashing the U.S. Capitol - very seat of government - until the mobs had already done their damage).

Once such instance was here in Philly (something my mom used to talk about as she was 14 at the time) -

In Philly 80 years ago, a racist subway strike paralyzed the city in the middle of World War II (August 01, 2024)

The same racist types that you see today went on a wildcat strike in 1944 at our precursor transit system - PTC (now SEPTA) - because 8 blacks were promoted to be trolley drivers. FDR sent in troops to monitor and then take over the system (at least for the 6 days that the strike lasted).









And I think most are aware of the George Wallace mess in Alabama in the early '60s.

This is probably the type of thing 45's loons would argue in court although the difference would be consent/request from the local government officials in most (but obviously not "all" as in the AL, MS or LA) cases.

OldBaldy1701E

(8,760 posts)
3. Yes, but...
Mon Aug 11, 2025, 09:21 AM
Aug 11

My question stands, as this is not being done to correct an illegal action, nor was it done with the consent of the majority.

It is a political move designed to frighten those who do not kiss his ass. It is blatantly illegal in that there is no reason for it.

At all.

So, since the state of California is bringing a court case, my question is, is this a criminal case? Because it sure seems to check the boxes, in my opinion. (Mainly due to intent.)

BumRushDaShow

(158,594 posts)
4. They are "claiming" it is done to "protect the federal buildings"
Mon Aug 11, 2025, 09:45 AM
Aug 11

We know that is bullshit because they ignored the most important federal building of all - the "People's House", and they'll cherry pick pointing out Black Bloc disruptions among peaceful protestors.

I usually put the "references" up for these cases but here are two -

California sues Trump admin over National Guard deployment in Los Angeles amid ICE protests

Gov. Newsom Files Emergency Motion To Block Trump's Militarization Of LA

From what I understand - these are civil complaints (questioning the legality) versus criminal complaints.

This summarizes - 5 things to know as Newsom and Trump go back to court over the National Guard in LA

Response to OldBaldy1701E (Reply #3)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»The legal battle over Tru...