Thread: Judge Breyer’s ruling blocking Trump’s use of the National Guard in California is legally flawed and dangerous. Here’s why. 🧵
-
Judge Charles Breyer just overruled a lawful federal deployment of troops, handing control of the Guard back to Governor Newsom. That’s not how federal authority works.
-
Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the President may federalize Guard units when unrest disrupts law enforcement. The law does not require a governor’s permission or “routing orders” through the state.
-
Breyer says there was no “rebellion” — but that’s a political judgment, not a legal one. Federal buildings were attacked, and federal personnel were threatened. That qualifies under precedent.
-
The TRO (temporary restraining order) was issued based on speculative state harms — but it caused real harm by paralyzing federal troop deployments during unrest.
-
This ruling invites chaos: if every governor can block federal actions in court mid-crisis, there is no unified national defense — only 50 lawsuits.
-
The Ninth Circuit should overturn this. Not to protect Trump — but to preserve the basic structure of federal power in times of crisis.
End thread.
Here is the long version...
Title: “Flawed and Dangerous: Breyer’s TRO in Newsom v. Trump Undermines Federal Command Authority”
Judge Charles R. Breyer’s June 12 TRO in Newsom et al. v. Trump et al., No. 3:25-cv-04870 (N.D. Cal. 2025), is a troubling judicial intrusion into core executive powers. The ruling temporarily blocks federal command over California National Guard troops under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, effectively allowing a state governor to veto a presidential order during a domestic crisis.
1. § 12406 Requires No State Approval
The statute provides that the President may call the National Guard into federal service in cases of:
“invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces.”
Nothing in the text or precedent (see Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)) requires gubernatorial consent or routing orders through the state.
2. “Rebellion” Standard Misapplied
Breyer asserted that Los Angeles unrest failed to qualify as a “rebellion,” narrowing the term beyond what courts have traditionally required. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), and subsequent Insurrection Act uses, courts have generally deferred to executive discretion on such determinations.
3. TRO Based on Speculative Harm
The court's order cites loss of Guard resources for firefighting and border support. But Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), affirms that speculative harms cannot outweigh strong governmental interests — especially in national defense or public order.
4. Undermining Unified Command
By wresting control from federal commanders during a domestic deployment, the TRO risks fragmenting military response in emergencies — a concern echoed in Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), where the Court warned against judicial overreach into command discretion.
Judge Breyer’s ruling isn’t just a statutory misreading — it’s a threat to lawful executive action and federal cohesion in moments when both matter most. The Ninth Circuit should reverse it quickly and decisively.
disclosure: received assistance from ChatGPT