Fact Check: California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids.

Fact Check: California's Emergency Motion to Block National Guard from Immigration Raids

What We Know

The claim that "California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids" is based on a series of legal actions involving the California National Guard and the Trump administration. A federal judge, Charles Breyer, ruled that the Trump administration had illegally taken control of the California National Guard, ordering them to return to the command of Governor Gavin Newsom. This ruling was a response to the deployment of the National Guard to assist federal immigration agents amid protests in Los Angeles (source-1).

Governor Newsom had indeed filed an emergency motion to restrict the National Guard's involvement in immigration raids, arguing that their deployment was illegal and violated the Tenth Amendment (source-3). However, the judge's ruling went beyond this request, blocking the National Guard from being used for any law enforcement tasks, not just immigration raids (source-1).

Analysis

The claim is partially true because while California did file an emergency motion to limit the National Guard's role, the judge's ruling ultimately prohibited their involvement in all law enforcement activities, not just immigration-related ones. This distinction is important as it highlights the broader implications of the court's decision beyond the specific request made by the state.

The sources used to confirm this information are credible. The New York Times article provides a detailed account of the court's ruling and the legal arguments presented (source-1). The Associated Press also corroborates the claim about California's emergency motion and the subsequent judicial decisions (source-3). Both sources are reputable and have a history of reliable reporting on legal and political matters.

However, it is essential to note that the emergency motion filed by California was part of a larger legal context, and the judge's ruling addressed more than just the state's request. This complexity is often lost in simplified claims.

Conclusion

The verdict is Partially True. California did file an emergency motion to limit the National Guard's involvement in immigration raids, but the judge's ruling ultimately blocked their use in all law enforcement activities, which was a broader action than what the state specifically requested. The legal context and the implications of the ruling are significant and should be considered when evaluating the claim.

Sources

1. Trump's Use of National Guard in Limbo After Court Rulings
2. Federal judge rejects Gov. Newsom's emergency motion to ...
3. Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ...
4. US court blocks federal judge's National Guard order
5. Appeals court delays order blocking Trump National Guard ...
6. Appeals court temporarily blocks order to return National ...
7. Court hearing set on California challenge to Trump's use of ...
8. Appeals court blocks ruling directing Trump return control ...