SECOND UPDATE: Judge denies Newsom a quickie order.
*UPDATE* Trump’s team responds:
It seeks an extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous court order. If entered, Plaintiffs’ proposed order would jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the Federal Government’s ability to carry out operations. Plaintiffs’ request that this Court supervise the President and Secretary of Defense’s management of military forces is itself highly unusual and indeed non-justiciable under constitutional principles. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ suggestion that this Court enter an order—on a one-sided record and without hearing from Defendants—on a subject of grave importance that implicates the separation of powers. As Plaintiffs noted in their motion, Defendants request the Court enter an order making Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion due tomorrow at 11 a.m. Pacific time. Defendants request 24 hours to finalize declarations necessary to expose certain of Plaintiffs’ allegations as false and demonstrate the irreparable harm to the Defendants if the Court were to enter the proposed order.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom demanded that a judge issue a restraining order from the time of filing (Pacific time) to block President Donald Trump and his administration from deploying the National Guard and Marines.
“The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens,” claimed Newsom. “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.”
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a TRO is necessary by 1:00 p.m. on June 10, 2025, to prevent immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Absent immediate injunctive relief, Defendants’ use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek a TRO and preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo.
Newsom knows his lawsuit against Trump and the administration is hogwash.
Trump deployed the National Guard, citing 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
Newsom insisted that Trump violated the Constitution and acted without lawful authority.
Oh, one more thing. Newsom said Trump never called him.
John Roberts at Fox has a different story:
I must point out that the video clip Newsom reposted shows Trump stating that he called Newsom a day ago.
The screenshot shows June 7. A day ago was June 9. I don’t know which day Trump meant because the screenshot confirms Newsom did not pick up.
The Washington Post reported Newsom’s comments about a phone call that happened on Friday, June 6. He said Trump rambled on about “trivial subjects,” but “unsuccessfully” moved the conversation “toward serious subjects.”
Newsom described Trump as “gracious,” but said the president never told him about deploying the National Guard or asked about the protests.
The last comment has me thinking. The statute states, “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”
So, if I remember correctly, Newsom insisted before that he had to consent to the president sending in the National Guard.
Is his story now that Trump did not alert him? Did someone remind Newsom of the statute’s language?
I cannot keep up with these stories. Everyone seems to change their stories.
I cannot blame them. The evidence keeps blowing up their narratives.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY