 |
| Pix credit here |
As the wheel turns, combating factions tend to use and abandon tools and principles they once condemned when asserted by opponents. There was a time when progressive forces viewed the narratives of state's rights as anathema, and the deployment of federalized military essential to the enforcement of federal constitutional rights against the forces that sought to resist the lawful exercise of authority as enforced by the Administration and supported by the courts. That certainly wad the case during the early days of desegregation and into the time on integration policies and its violence in the 1950s and 1960s--where rioters threatened civil order and were met by an elegant and sophisticated administrative-judicial set of principles and approaches that narrowed the ambit of state sovereign authority and found in the federalization of state forces a quite useful means to advance their normative agendas. There were limits of course, for example the Watts riots of 1965; but there was also a toleration of civil disobedience and street protests that aligned with the larger objectives of political leadership through, perhaps the early 2020s.
But with the return of a political faction with quite distinct normative agendas, and in the face of reversals of key elements of the old political projects, especially, for example with respect to the constitutionalization of abortion rights, the challenge to the changing scope and normative baselines of integrationist policy, and the transformation of migration policy, there appears to be a shift. Those who might have been dismissive of states rights and the power to avoid federalization of local police forces now appear to embrace them; those who placed all of their hope in the nation now seek solace in the authority of states; those who looked to political authority now seek protection in the courts and in the protection of private law and rights. So it appears that as the political opposition to the aims, style, and normative agendas of President Trump appear to gather force, yesterday's anathema is today's blessing and protective fetish. The resulting tensions were evident in the context of political mobilization and counter-mobilization in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd in 2020 even after the federal courts began to undo some of the judicial constructions of social relations respecting abortion and the 1940s conception of the wall of separation between churches and the state. But their intensity has now made confronting the resulting systemic challenges unavoidable.
The latest episode centers on President Trump's efforts to move forward his migration policies as a set of principles, as an approach to law and legal interpretation, and as an effort to enforce laws in a manner the current Administration believes best serves the nation. Indeed, it might be argued that with the re-election of President Trump in 2024, these transformations have moved from the esoteric to the phenomenological when violence erupted in popular protests in Los Angeles against the tactics and operations of federal migration forces operating in Southern California. The events highlight both the nostalgia for the alignment of protest and policy from the 1950s, and the embrace of states rights and the protection of deviation in policy between states and the national political organs.
The events leading both to the occurrences on the streets and in the courts were described from the perspective of the California Governor in a Press Release posted to the Governor's website:
Following President Trump’s doubling down on the militarization of the Los Angeles area through the takeover of 4,000 more California National Guard soldiers and the unlawful deployment of the U.S. Marines, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are filing an emergency request for the court to block President Trump and the Department of Defense from expanding the current mission of federalized Cal Guard personnel and Marines. This mission orders soldiers to engage in unlawful civilian law enforcement activities in communities across the region, beyond just guarding federal buildings. * * * The lawsuit was filed as President Trump declared the federalization of 2,000 Cal Guard servicemembers after community members began protesting violent and widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles region, which began on June 6. ICE began these operations without providing notification to law enforcement and engineered them to provoke community backlash. During the course of these operations, ICE officers took actions that inflamed tensions — including the arrest and detainment of children, community advocates, and people without criminal history — and conducted military-style operations that sparked panic in the community.
Pix credit here
As befits the character of a political figure engaging in politics, the essence of the Press Release is fundamentally political; as was the response by President Trump.
President Donald Trump hit back at Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's claims that the president did not recently call him, telling Fox News he spoke to the governor for about 16 minutes on Saturday. Trump told Fox News Tuesday while traveling to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that Newsom did not pick up his first call over the weekend, but that he picked up the second call and the pair spoke for about 16 minutes on Saturday. "I told him to, essentially, ‘Get his ass in gear,’ and stop the riots, which were out of control," Trump said Tuesday. "More than anything else, this shows what a liar he is – said I never called." (HERE).
That strike back was augmented with an Opinion Essay published 11 June 2025 in the Wall Street Journal written by Tom Cotton, a senior and influential member of the Senate and of the Republican Party:
Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend, with anarchists setting fire to vehicles, throwing scooters and debris at police, and looting businesses—all while waving foreign flags. Despite the rising chaos, Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose office likened the riots to a Philadelphia Eagles playoff victory celebration, and Mayor Karen Bass, who refuses to support federal law enforcement, haven’t taken sufficient action to restore law and order. Meanwhile, incredibly, Democrats and the liberal media have again called this outbreak of violence “mostly peaceful protests,” while in the same breath blaming the riots, arson, and looting on President Trump for enforcing immigration law. The New York Times described “largely peaceful” riots with fireworks fired at police, cars set on fire, and more than 150 arrests. The threat from the radical left is clear: Don’t enforce immigration laws. If you do, left-wing street militias will burn down cities, and Democratic politicians will back the rioters. The president is absolutely right to reject this threat, enforce immigration laws, and restore civil order. At the risk of again sending liberals to their fainting couches, it may indeed be time to send in the troops. (Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops, for Real: When local police can’t restore order, the federal government has a duty to do so with a show of force).
Pix credit here
But the more interesting aspect is the context--this politics is almost automatically now played out within courts and thorough a legality of politics. In one sense, the actions and counteractions continue a process of refinement of judicialized politics undertaken through and as the language of legality (not law but through law). That increasingly draws the judiciary, and consequentially so into the arena of politics. This has been a long tome coming and perhaps the apotheosis of a process now a century or more in gestation (discussed many years ago in a more formative stage in ). The result will change (for good or ill, however those terms are invested with value and meaning) both the mythos of the judiciary and the structures of the Republic as its divided power model is refashioned for the current stage of the historical development of the political system first framed in 1789. If law is the final arbiter of politics (as at its greatest level of generality most would still agree it must be), and if the courts are the final arbiter both of the meaning of law and its application in context, then at least at a great level of generality it is the courts that are the arbiters of politics in a liberal democratic order; where that position is then extended to the level of micro politics--where all politics is litigated (and strategically that is the incentive in systems of this sort), then inevitably the question of the role of the courts in politics, and of the judiciary in a democratic system will be debated. Change any of these premises, and the debate changes as well. Change any of phenomenological development, and again the debate changes. The same applies to all of the markers of the judicialization of politics and the politics of law from nationwide injunctions by local courts to the political analytics of political decision making in the context of a (quite legitimate) jurisprudence of abuse of discretion. Passions--especially political-ideological passions of the moment make any such discussion virtually implausible at the moment.
The issues, thus, are actually quite significant, almost as significant as the implausibility of resolution in the current moment; but then so are their politics. And as with many things since January 2025, whatever happens, the legal/political landscape will again be transformed in some way. The full text of Governor Newsom's Press Release and Senator Cotton's Wall Street Journal Opinion Essay ollow below. The text of the lawsuit mat be accessed HERE.
Access
Part 4: Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (9th Cir, slip op. 19 June 2025)
“Turning the military against American citizens”
What you need to know: Standing up for American citizens and the Nation’s foundational ban on martial law in peacetime, California Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are requesting the court step in to immediately block the Trump administration’s unnecessary militarization of Los Angeles to include immigration enforcement in communities.
LOS ANGELES – Following President Trump’s doubling down on the militarization of the Los Angeles area through the takeover of 4,000 more California National Guard soldiers and the unlawful deployment of the U.S. Marines, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are filing an emergency request for the court to block President Trump and the Department of Defense from expanding the current mission of federalized Cal Guard personnel and Marines. This mission orders soldiers to engage in unlawful civilian law enforcement activities in communities across the region, beyond just guarding federal buildings.
“The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens. Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy. Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President. We ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions.”
Governor Gavin Newsom
“The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him. It’s not just immoral — It’s illegal and dangerous. Local law enforcement, not the military, enforce the law within our borders. The President continues to inflame tensions and antagonize communities. We’re asking the court to immediately block the Trump Administration from ordering the military or federalized national guard from patrolling our communities or otherwise engaging in general law enforcement activities beyond federal property.”
Attorney General Bonta
The request was filed as part of the Governor’s lawsuit against President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense (DOD), charging violations of the U.S. Constitution and the President’s Title 10 authority, not only because the takeover occurred without the consent or input of the Governor, as federal law requires, but also because it was unwarranted.
The lawsuit was filed as President Trump declared the federalization of 2,000 Cal Guard servicemembers after community members began protesting violent and widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles region, which began on June 6. ICE began these operations without providing notification to law enforcement and engineered them to provoke community backlash.
During the course of these operations, ICE officers took actions that inflamed tensions — including the arrest and detainment of children, community advocates, and people without criminal history — and conducted military-style operations that sparked panic in the community. In response, community members began protesting to express opposition to these violent tactics, arrests of innocent people, and the President’s heavy-handed immigration agenda. Protests continued for two more days, and although some violent and illegal incidents were reported — leading to justified arrests by state and local authorities — these protests were largely nonviolent and involved citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest. The protests did not necessitate federal intervention, and local and state law enforcement have been able to control of the situation, as in other recent instances of unrest. Local law enforcement, despite no communication or advanced notice from the federal government, responded quickly and did not request federal assistance.
Illegal militarization
On June 7, one day after the protests began, President Trump issued a memorandum purporting to authorize the DOD to call up 2,000 National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days, and declaring a “form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” and directing the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with state governors and the National Guard to commandeer state militias.
The action puts state sovereignty in danger, as his order was not specific to California and suggests that the President could assume control of any state militia.
The U.S. Constitution and the Title 10 authority the President invoked in the memo require that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Governor Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment and which he confirmed he had not given shortly after their deployment. The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.
Additionally, DOD has expanded Cal Guard’s duties, ordering them to assist ICE agents in civilian law enforcement activities — including arresting and detaining immigrants and others who may be suspected or accused of interfering with ICE — a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the rights of American citizens.
Cleaning up Trump’s mess
On Saturday, there were 250+ protesters pre-National Guard deployment. On Sunday, the protesters grew to 3,000+ post-deployment of the National Guard by the federal government. Their presence is inviting and incentivizing demonstrations.
Since President Trump’s impulsive memo and actions to send the military to the Los Angeles region, the state continued to work with local partners to surge 800+ additional state and local law enforcement officers into Los Angeles to clean up President Trump’s mess. Local and state law enforcement has had to intervene to protect public safety. The National Guard is currently standing sentry outside federal buildings, with local and state law enforcement doing all of the work. The President’s actions have not only caused widespread panic and chaos, but have unnecessarily created an additional diversion of resources as the state tries to calm a community terrorized by this reckless federal action.
The hypocrisy is on full display
In 2020, Trump said he wouldn’t federalize National Guard members without the approval of the state’s Governor first. His own Department of Homeland Security leader said just last year that federalizing the National Guard would be a direct attack on state rights. The federal administration is adding more National Guard soldiers and Marines to an already charged situation when they are unneeded. There are 1,600 soldiers waiting for commands at armories in the area.
Read more about the lawsuit here.
ET
Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend, with anarchists setting fire to vehicles, throwing scooters and debris at police, and looting businesses—all while waving foreign flags.
Despite the rising chaos, Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose office likened the riots to a Philadelphia Eagles playoff victory celebration, and Mayor Karen Bass, who refuses to support federal law enforcement, haven’t taken sufficient action to restore law and order.
Meanwhile, incredibly, Democrats and the liberal media have again called this outbreak of violence “mostly peaceful protests,” while in the same breath blaming the riots, arson, and looting on President Trump for enforcing immigration law. The New York Times described “largely peaceful” riots with fireworks fired at police, cars set on fire, and more than 150 arrests.
The threat from the radical left is clear: Don’t enforce immigration laws. If you do, left-wing street militias will burn down cities, and Democratic politicians will back the rioters. The president is absolutely right to reject this threat, enforce immigration laws, and restore civil order.
At the risk of again sending liberals to their fainting couches, it may indeed be time to send in the troops. Let’s look at the facts for some context.
President Biden permitted—even encouraged—a slow-motion invasion of America that allowed murderers, rapists and other violent criminals to enter our country illegally. In November, the American people elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to secure our border and deport violent illegal aliens. That’s exactly what the president is doing.
The latest enforcement operation in Los Angeles rounded up illegal-alien criminals with lengthy rap sheets. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the operation resulted in the arrests of illegal aliens charged with crimes including second-degree murder, willful cruelty to a child, sexual battery and assault with a deadly weapon.
Democrats put such violent illegal aliens and their anarchist sympathizers ahead of the police, law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants whose communities are being terrorized.
Is anyone surprised? Democrats also stood idly by or even celebrated as the Black Lives Matter riots ransacked our cities five years ago. If anything, these riots are worse. At least the BLM rioters didn’t wave foreign flags.
The solution now is the same as I said then: an overwhelming show of force to end the riots.
As always, local police are the first line of defense, but when the police can’t restore order—or aren’t allowed to by Democratic mayors—the National Guard must be called out. We reached this point in Los Angeles, where the police chief has said that the “disgusting” violence has “overwhelmed” his forces, adding that “there’s no limit to what they’re doing to our officers” and “we’ve seen violence at a level that disgusts every good person.”
Mr. Newsom—incompetent and ideological all at once—refused to mobilize the National Guard, leaving Mr. Trump little choice but to federalize the California Guard to protect federal law-enforcement agents and restore order. He has unquestioned legal authority to do so, plus many precedents. In my own state, a Democratic governor mobilized the Arkansas Guard to obstruct the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School in 1957, forcing President Dwight Eisenhower to federalize the Guard and enable desegregation.
Finally, if the Guard alone can’t restore order and protect federal officers and property, the president can use active-duty troops under the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law almost as old as the republic. Thus far, Mr. Trump has taken a measured approach and said he doesn’t yet see a need to invoke the Insurrection Act. Let’s hope that the National Guard, federal law enforcement and local police can end the anarchy and restore order to Los Angeles.
In addition to the overwhelming show of force, Congress also needs to show our support for federal law enforcement. This week, I’m introducing legislation to stiffen penalties for rioters who attack law enforcement and to make riot-related crimes a deportable offense for noncitizens.
Further, the Republican budget bill provides a huge funding boost to immigration authorities so they can secure our border and deport criminal illegal aliens out of our country.
These ideas are basic common sense, but as was the case five years ago, the Democrats haven’t learned. It isn’t “inflammatory,” as Mr. Newsom claimed, to enforce federal law, stand with law enforcement and protect civilians. It’s necessary to keep the peace.
Mr. Cotton, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Arkansas.
No comments:
Post a Comment