Fact Check: DOJ argues courts can't challenge president's National Guard mobilization decisions
What We Know
The claim that the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that courts cannot challenge the president's decisions regarding National Guard mobilization is rooted in recent legal proceedings involving President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. During a hearing at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, DOJ attorney Brett Shumate stated that “there’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision” regarding the president's authority to call up the National Guard (source-3). This assertion reflects a broader interpretation of presidential powers under federal law, which grants the president significant discretion in deploying military forces, including the National Guard, without necessarily requiring judicial oversight (source-2).
The context of this legal battle involves a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that Trump's deployment of the National Guard was unlawful and violated state sovereignty. A lower court had ruled in favor of Newsom, stating that the president exceeded his authority, but the appeals court has temporarily paused that ruling while it considers the case (source-1).
Analysis
The DOJ's position reflects a legal interpretation that emphasizes the president's broad authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the mobilization of the National Guard during times of national emergency or unrest. The argument presented by the DOJ suggests that the courts should refrain from intervening in such executive decisions, which they argue are clear under the statute (source-7).
However, this interpretation is not universally accepted. Critics, including legal experts and state officials, argue that the deployment of the National Guard without the governor's consent undermines state sovereignty and the principle of checks and balances inherent in the U.S. political system. Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled against the deployment, emphasized that the protests in Los Angeles did not meet the legal definition of a "rebellion," which would justify such federal action (source-1).
The reliability of the sources reporting on this case is generally high, as they include major news outlets and legal analyses. However, the interpretation of the law can vary significantly depending on the political and legal perspectives of the commentators involved (source-5).
Conclusion
The claim that the DOJ argues courts cannot challenge the president's National Guard mobilization decisions is Partially True. While the DOJ has indeed taken a stance suggesting that such decisions are beyond judicial review, this view is contested in the courts and by state officials. The ongoing legal proceedings will ultimately determine the extent of presidential authority in this context and whether judicial review is permissible.
Sources
- Appeals court hears arguments in National Guard ...
- Appeals court questions judges' ability to review Trump's ...
- WATCH: Federal appeals court considers Trump's ...
- Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump national ...
- Appeals court seems poised to side with Trump on ...
- Trump lawyers call his decision to send troops to LA ...
- DOJ argues against judicial review of National Guard ...
- U.S. appeals court weighs Trump's deployment of National ...
