The Department of Justice is pushing back against California’s attempt to block President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, calling the legal challenge from Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom a “crass political stunt” that threatens public safety.

REPORTER: “What crime has Governor Newsom committed?”

TRUMP: “Running for governor.”pic.twitter.com/8m7WFwgHbx

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 9, 2025

The dispute centers on Trump’s use of 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a federal statute that grants the president the power to mobilize National Guard units in cases of rebellion or similar threats. California officials argue that Trump’s decision to invoke the law to address immigration-related protests does not meet that legal threshold and was done without the required consent of the state, reports Fox News.

In a court filing submitted Wednesday, the Justice Department argued that the president is not required to consult or notify a governor before calling up the National Guard.

“The extraordinary relief plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief’s military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less,” administration lawyers stated. “That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous.”

The filing comes just a day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the Trump administration, alleging that the federalization of the state’s National Guard troops was illegal. Bonta said Trump acted unilaterally without consulting Newsom, violating the dual-control structure typically governing National Guard units.

Under normal circumstances, such actions involve the coordination and consent of the governor.

Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Both of these photos were taken before the president authorized the national guard to go protect our border patrol in California. Does this look like "no problem"?

Newsom and his stooge Karen Bass fomented… https://t.co/hLyB8LVqvl pic.twitter.com/oyItCsxrqF

— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 10, 2025

Bonta emphasized that California had not experienced a rebellion or insurrection that would justify federal intervention under Section 12406. “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection,” Bonta’s office told the court.

“Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years.”

A federal judge denied California’s initial request for a temporary restraining order but scheduled a hearing for Friday to consider the broader request for injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, 26 Republican state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the administration. “In California, we’re seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement,” they wrote. “When local and state officials won’t act, the federal government must.”

The hearing Friday will determine whether the court will allow the Trump administration to proceed with its National Guard deployment or impose restrictions in response to California’s legal challenge.