Fact Check: The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires that the president go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard.

Fact Check: "The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires that the president go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard."

What We Know

The claim centers on the legal framework governing the National Guard's federalization, specifically referencing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. According to 10 U.S. Code § 12406, the President has the authority to call National Guard members into federal service, but this action requires the consent of the respective state governors. This legal stipulation is crucial, as it establishes the necessary protocol for federalizing state militias.

In recent events, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit asserting that President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in California was illegal because it occurred without his consent, thereby violating both federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit explicitly argued that Title 10 mandates the President to coordinate with state governors when issuing orders to the National Guard (Governor Newsom suing President Trump, High-ranking U.S. military officials agree).

Analysis

The evidence supporting the claim is robust, as it is grounded in established legal statutes. The language of Title 10 clearly indicates that the President must obtain the governor's consent before federalizing National Guard units. This interpretation is reinforced by multiple sources, including legal analyses and statements from military officials (10 U.S. Code § 12406, Governor Newsom suing President Trump).

The credibility of these sources is high. The U.S. Code is a primary legal document, and its interpretation by legal experts and military officials lends significant weight to the argument. Furthermore, the lawsuit filed by Governor Newsom has garnered attention from various media outlets, which have reported on the legal implications of the President's actions (Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling, Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?).

Critically, the context of the lawsuit involves a broader discussion about state versus federal authority, particularly in the realm of military deployment. The involvement of high-ranking military officials in supporting the lawsuit adds an additional layer of credibility, as these individuals have firsthand experience and understanding of the legal frameworks governing military operations (High-ranking U.S. military officials agree).

Conclusion

The claim that the lawsuit argued Title 10 requires the President to go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard is True. The legal framework established in Title 10, along with the specific assertions made in the lawsuit filed by Governor Newsom, supports this conclusion. The requirement for gubernatorial consent is not only a matter of legal protocol but also a reflection of the balance of power between state and federal authorities.

Sources

1. Governor Newsom suing President Trump and Department of Defense for illegal takeover of CalGuard unit
2. 10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
3. High-ranking U.S. military officials agree: Trump’s takeover of Los Angeles is illegal
4. Appeals court temporarily blocks judge’s ruling to return control of National Guard to California
5. Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
6. The Governor's Role in Federalizing the National Guard
7. Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California
8. Trump broke the law and must return control of National Guard to Newsom, court rules