The court used 14 of its 38 page ruling to reject the #DOJ's argument that #Trump's decision to federalize the #California #NationalGuard can't be reviewed by the courts.
But, the court concluded that the requirement in #Title10 §12406 that "orders ... shall be issued through the governors of the States" does not mean that a governor must consent or even be consulted before their #state's National Guard is federalized.
#law #PosseComitatusAct #Constitution #RightToProtest #LosAngeles #military
![Similarly, Plaintiffs' argument that the text requires, "[a]t a minimum," that the Governor be "consulted about an order" is not supported by the language of § 12406. Rather, the decision to activate the National Guard under § 12406 is textually committed to the President alone. See 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (*[T]he President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard ...." (emphasis added)). Even with the requirement that such orders be issued "through the governor," id., that provision does not grant the governor any "consulting" role. It simply delineates the procedural mechanisms through which the President's orders are issued.](/proxy/post_attachment/1952790/f97507bde7.png "Similarly, Plaintiffs' argument that the text requires, \"[a]t a minimum,\" that the Governor be \"consulted about an order\" is not supported by the language of § 12406. Rather, the decision to activate the National Guard under § 12406 is textually committed to the President alone. See 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (*[T]he President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard ....\" (emphasis added)). Even with the requirement that such orders be issued \"through the governor,\" id., that provision does not grant the governor any \"consulting\" role. It simply delineates the procedural mechanisms through which the President's orders are issued.")
Edited 36d ago
