Skip to main content

mastodon - Link to source
BIG, JUST IN: Judge Charles Breyer finds that President Trump exceeded the scope of his authority and violated the 10th Amendment by federalizing the California National Guard and orders him to return control to Governor Newsom. 1/
storage.courtlistener.com/reca… #LawFedi
#lawfedi
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.” 2/

reshared this

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Some key background facts:
“Defendants did not notify Governor Newsom of their intent to federalize the California National Guard prior to issuing the June 7 Memo or the June 7 DOD Order.… Governor Newsom only learned of the June 7 DOD Order from the Adjutant General after the Adjutant General received it.” 3/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Court notes that numerous sources testify to the fact that putting the National Guard on the streets of L.A. inflamed the protests. 4/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •

Newsom informed Hegseth that his order to deploy National Guard was unlawful, that local law enforcement resources sufficient, and that deploying National Guard w/out adequate training or orders risked serious escalation of situation. Newsom asked Hegseth to rescind order.

Instead, Hegseth posted on social media that he was deploying 700 active duty Marines to L.A. to “restore order” and “defend federal law enforcement”. 5/

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
“The parties have not introduced any evidence of any protesters carrying firearms, and there is no evidence of any organized (as opposed to sporadic) violence.” 6/

Paul Cantrell reshared this.

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
California arguing that Trump exceeded his lawful authority 3 ways: he cited U.S.C. § 12406, which permits the President to federalize the National Guard, none of the three statutory conditions for invoking that statute were met; he failed to comply with § 12406’s procedural requirement that any order issued under that statute “shall be issued through the governors of the States; he federalized the National Guard for an unlawful purpose in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. 7/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
By law, Pres may only federalize Nat Guard of a State if U.S. is (about to be) invaded or there is a (imminent) rebellion against U.S. govt or if Pres is unable to execute fed laws with regular forces. Hegseth and Trump didn’t specifics which condition(s) they were relying on. Later DoJ said last two. 8/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Eyepoppingly, “Defendants also challenge whether the Court can even properly evaluate whether these conditions were met, asserting that § 12406 reserved this determination to the President’s discretion alone.” [more arrogation of dictatorial power to Trump] 9/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •

Court comes right back with Marbury v. Madison and Cohens v. Virginia, two bedrock precedents from early 1800s.

‘“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Thus, federal courts have “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821).’ 10/

Paul Cantrell reshared this.

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •

Trump regime tried to argue that “political question” exception to these propositions applies bc statute itself gives Pres “sole and exclusive discretion” to determine if rebellion against US gov exists or whether the Pres is not able to execute fed laws with regular forces.

“Indeed, at the hearing Defendants contended that the President could invoke § 12406 on no evidence whatsoever and remain immune from judicial review.“ 11/

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
If a statute commits a decision to President’s DISCRETION, then Pres’s decision is not judicially reviewable. However the statute in question does not make the preconditions for federalization of the Nat Guard a matter of President’s discretion: “The statute permits the President to federalize the National Guard “[w]henever” one of the three enumerated conditions are met, not whenever he determines that one of them is met.” 12/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
(Trump regime keeps making this super of argument in different cases. See heidi-says.ghost.io/when-words… for more on this point.) 13/

When words give out, so does judicial power

Attorneys for Venezuelan detainees across the country have had to go to court upon receiving reports of imminent removals based on barebones forms written only in English and without mention of a right to seek habeas corpus.
Heidi Li Feldman (Heidi Says)
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Bottom line, says Court, President doesn’t get to define “rebellion” or inability to use regular forces any old way he pleases. These are statutory terms, and it is the everyday work of courts to engage in statutory interpretation. 14/

Servelan reshared this.

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Moreover, this isn’t a case involving foreign policy or national security, matters where Pres gets great, maybe even total, deference. This is about DOMESTIC use of military force. 15/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
After deciding it has authority to review the case, Court uses conventional legal statutory interpretation to conclude that the sort of disorganized, sporadic, unarmed street violence in LA does not qualify as a “rebellion”. 16/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
“Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion. The U.S. Reports are chock-full of language explaining the importance of individuals’ right to speak out against the government—even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when doing so is provocative, even when doing so causes inconvenience.” 17/

reshared this

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
“[C]ourts have repeatedly reaffirmed that peaceful protest does not lose its protection merely because some isolated individuals act violently outside the protections of the First Amendment…” 18/

SufferForMe 🆘 reshared this.

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
My apologies for length of this thread - the opinion is lengthy and intricate but it is vital that as many Americans as possible understand it, at least somewhat. So, onward! 19/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

atomicangel
mastodon - Link to source
atomicangel
• •

No no! Please continue! I wasn't aware that the Insurrection Act was written so broadly and this thread motivated me to check into it.

Fucking scary, pardon the language.

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •

The thread picks up at mastodon.social/@heidilifeldma…

Heidi Li Feldman

2025-06-13 02:31:45

mastodon - Link to source

Court moves on to find that there is no support for Trump/Hegseth claim that National Guard was needed to ensure that ICE could go about its business. ICE succeeded in detaining and arresting plenty of people before Guard came in and while protests were occurring. Just because ICE officials may have been facing some risk of failure does not mean President was “unable” to execute U.S. laws. 20/

in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Faraiwe
mastodon - Link to source
Faraiwe
• •
thanks for doing what you do. We appreciate it, AND enjoy the occasional added snark.
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Court moves on to find that there is no support for Trump/Hegseth claim that National Guard was needed to ensure that ICE could go about its business. ICE succeeded in detaining and arresting plenty of people before Guard came in and while protests were occurring. Just because ICE officials may have been facing some risk of failure does not mean President was “unable” to execute U.S. laws. 20/
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Next, court addresses whether Trump complied with statute’s procedural requirement that Pres must work through state’s governor to order National Guard into federal service. The court quickly nixes Trump argument that just by typing “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA” at the top of DoD orders, Trump/Hegseth followed procedure. The statute specifically states orders “shall be ISSUED through the governors.” (Emphasis mine). 21/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Court takes up Posse Comitatas, 1878 Act that prohibits military personnel from acting as a “posse comitatus,” or those “upon whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.” 22/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
California had argued that Trump/Hegseth orders put National Guard and Marines at risk of violating Posse Comitatus Act. But court decides it is too early to know if there are actual violations - and in any event court has already decided, on other grounds, that Trump/Hegseth orders are illegal. 23/
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Jeffandthekid
mastodon - Link to source
Jeffandthekid
• •
Your President is mad, your SCOTUS is corrupt. Republicans rule. Your military at all levels is compromised with Trump stooges and goons. Where you going to hide? Gaza is in ruins, people starving, Israel is attacking Iran. How shit!!
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Heidi Li Feldman
mastodon - Link to source
Heidi Li Feldman
• •
Finally, court rules that California is likely to prevail on its 10th Amendment claim. The 10th A reserves police powers - protection of public safety and welfare - to the states. The Federal government may not march into the states to serve these purposes. 24/24
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Shiiko
mastodon - Link to source
Shiiko
• •
Thank you for the breakdown. An easy read. Easy to understand. Very clear. The investment of your time and the generous sharing of your knowledge is appreciated. We are at a critical junction.
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Count Zero Interrupted
mastodon - Link to source
Count Zero Interrupted
• •
Oh goodie, another opportunity for a power grab by the Roberts Court, which has of course eschewed any such unsavory political meddling to date.
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Clare 🏴
mastodon - Link to source
Clare 🏴
• •
I still want to know who ordered the Waymo cars. The fact that they arrived all at the same time and from the same direction seems suspicious to me. There were also pictures of the first one being attacked by one individual who had tools for the purpose #agentprovocateur
#agentprovocateur
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Angela Scholder
mastodon - Link to source
Angela Scholder
• •
Thank you for this extensive report.
I'm a European in Europe and it's good to see attempts to stop the wannabe dictator and his Cronies.
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷
mastodon - Link to source
Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷
• •
Does this put the top guy in the California National Guard at risk of prosecution for obeying an illegal order?
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Ben Rosengart
mastodon - Link to source
Ben Rosengart
• •
I'm not a lawyer ... do you think he should address his order to the National Guard instead, directing them to take orders from the Governor? Since they seem more likely to obey than Trump does? I mean this is maybe more a practical than a legal question.
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Das
mastodon - Link to source
Das
• •

how many violations does it take to get to impeachment?
Or is that answer only in year & months?

#USPol

#uspol
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Das
mastodon - Link to source
Das
• •
how many violations does it take to get to impeachment?
Or is that answer only in year & months?
in reply to Heidi Li Feldman

Bebadefabo
mastodon - Link to source
Bebadefabo
• •
but nothing of substance will be done about it. The system is broken/beyond corrupt. It's time to take it apart and try again
⇧