California is staring down a line of camouflage-clad troops—and the battle brewing isn’t just in the streets but also in the courts.
After days of intense protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids, President Donald Trump didn’t just tweet his disapproval—he sent the National Guard. Backed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump’s move included mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines to bolster federal agents and protect property. The President framed the protests as bordering on a “rebellion” and declared federal law enforcement needed backup.
But California wasn’t having it.
The state filed a lawsuit calling the deployment unconstitutional, claiming Trump overstepped legal bounds and ignored the state’s authority. California Governor Gavin Newsom didn’t authorize the deployment—and according to the suit, he wasn’t even consulted.
So What Legal Card Did Trump Play?
Trump leaned on Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. That law lets a president activate National Guard units if the country is invaded or facing a rebellion, or if regular forces can’t enforce federal law. Trump insists the situation meets that bar.
But California argues otherwise: no invasion, no rebellion, no failure of federal enforcement. Just protests.
And here’s the catch—Section 12406 says orders “shall be issued through the governors.” California says that didn’t happen. Newsom’s legal team is also invoking the Tenth Amendment, which guards state powers against federal overreach.
What Can Troops Actually Do in This Situation?
Even if federalized, troops don’t get a free pass to start making arrests. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits U.S. military forces—including National Guard troops on federal orders—from engaging in civilian law enforcement. That means they can’t arrest protestors or raid buildings, but they can stand guard to protect federal agents and property.
Think of them more as a protective barrier, not law enforcers.
What Does California Want?
In plain terms: They want Trump’s order killed. The state seeks a court ruling declaring the deployment illegal, and a block on enforcing it.
Has This Happened Before?
Hardly. This particular section of Title 10 has rarely been used. The last time? Richard Nixon used it—to deliver mail during a postal workers’ strike in 1970.
Legal minds across the spectrum have questioned Trump’s logic here. Most agree that the protests, however intense, don’t rise to the level of a rebellion. And many point to the glaring lack of state involvement as a fatal flaw in the deployment.
Could Trump Go Even Bigger?
Yes. He could invoke the Insurrection Act of 1792, which gives presidents authority to use military force more directly in domestic law enforcement. It’s been used before—like during the 1992 LA riots—but always in extreme situations, often with the governor’s blessing.
Trump hasn’t pulled that trigger yet, but Vice President JD Vance and top aide Stephen Miller have reportedly floated the word “insurrection” internally, suggesting the administration is considering the move.
What About the Marines?
Different story there. Trump, as commander-in-chief, has direct authority over them under Title 10. But even they’re limited unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. Without it, Marines can’t carry out searches, seizures, or arrests. The Pentagon said the Marines are on standby to protect federal personnel and facilities—nothing more. For now.
The Legal Crossroads
Courts haven’t had many chances to interpret this corner of the law, so there’s no clear map. Some legal scholars say the word “shall” in the statute gives the governor veto power. Others argue it’s more about process than permission.
But what’s certain is that California isn’t backing down—and this legal fight could reshape the limits of presidential muscle in moments of civil unrest.
In the meantime, troops are in position, lawsuits are flying, and the Constitution’s role as referee is about to be tested—again.
