Trump Lawyers Cite War of 1812 Against Newsom’s LA National Guard Case

President Donald Trump‘s lawyers referenced the War of 1812 in legal documents related to California Governor Gavin Newsom‘s National Guard case.

Writing in a response to a U.S. district court case regarding Trump’s deployment of troops to California, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump had the authority to do so based on previous cases and laws that were used in the war fought between the United States and Great Britain between 1812 and 1815.

Why It Matters

Last week, a U.S. district court ordered Trump to return control of the National Guard to Newsom amid ongoing protests against Trump’s immigration policy in Los Angeles.

Newsom had opposed the deployment of some 4,000 troops to the area, which meant Trump had to federalize the state’s guard for the first time in more than 50 years, and asked a judge to stop them. But hours after the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the order.

What To Know

In a document, Trump’s lawyers argued that courts had already granted the president the power to deploy troops based on his exclusive discretion, citing an instance in which President James Madison activated New York troops to serve in the War of 1812.

They argued that this stemmed from a 1795 law regarding the use of troops in the event of an “imminent danger of invasion.”

The lawyers wrote that when that decision was challenged by a member of the New York militia, it was concluded that the president had the sole authority to decide when troops were needed in this context.

What People Are Saying

Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, told Newsweek: “While the wording of Martin v. Mott is powerful concerning the president’s discretion, I believe it’s a bit of intellectual gymnastics by the administration’s lawyers.

“Mott dealt with a 1795 law about militia in time of ‘war’ and the president’s authority over troops. In the current case, the president and his attorneys acknowledge his authority to call out the guard derives from 10 U.S., 12406 enacted in 1908.

“Section 12406 does not provide the president with exclusive interpretive authority as expressed in Mott.”

The court document read: “In Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827) (Story, J.), a member of the militia of New York challenged the penalties imposed on him by a court martial after he refused to comply with orders to report for federal service as part of the War of 1812. President Madison had activated the state militia into federal service pursuant to a 1795 law providing ‘that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.’

“The Supreme Court refused to entertain the member’s contention that the President had misjudged the danger of such an invasion, explaining that ‘the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President,’ whose decision ‘is conclusive upon all other persons.'”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, at last week’s hearing: “Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.”

President Donald Trump, Friday on Truth Social: “The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

What Happens Next

The case could be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, if challenges continue.