Why Gavin Newsom Can’t Stop Trump From Deploying U.S. Marines in California

ONCE THE HUNTER, NOW THE HUNTED

No state governor has the lawful right to create a de facto "anarchist zone" immune from federal law and protection.

To concede such a principle would dissolve the Union itself.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Date	Event
June 6–7, 2025	ICE raids in L.A. triggered widespread protests; the National Guard was federalized without Gov. Newsom’s request youtube.com+15en.wikipedia.org+15news.com.au+15.
June 8, 2025	About 500 Marines were placed on “high alert” at Camp Pendleton .
June 9, 2025	Deployment of ~700 Marines to Los Angeles was confirmed .

To counter Governor Gavin Newsome's lawsuit to block President Trump from using both the California National Guard and elements of the United States Marine Corps to quell the riots occuring in the State of California and to secure the citizens in their lives and property, we have put together an example of what we think the President's team will be generating for their court case AGAINST Governor Gavin Newsome.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, et al.,Defendants.

Case No. ________

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO DEPLOY ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY TO PROTECT FEDERAL PERSONNEL, PROPERTY, AND THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

This Court is presented with an urgent question of constitutional magnitude: whether the President of the United States possesses the authority—indeed, the obligation—to deploy federal forces to safeguard federal personnel and property, and to protect American citizens from politically tolerated violence within the sovereign territory of the United States.

Defendants argue that state prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment shield their inaction and refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement. But neither the Tenth Amendment nor any state sovereignty doctrine confers upon a state government the power to obstruct federal law, expose federal assets to destruction, or deny federal protection to law-abiding citizens. To accept such a claim would be to endorse a model of constitutional nullification long since repudiated by our highest courts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In June 2025, following lawful federal immigration enforcement actions in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, mass protests escalated into violence and widespread property destruction.

Credible intelligence and federal law enforcement reports indicate:

• Systematic targeting of federal facilities and personnel.

• Coordinated mob actions supported and shielded by local political actors.

• A demonstrable refusal by California state authorities to deploy adequate state forces to quell the violence or to safeguard federal operations.

In response, pursuant to his Article II powers and under 10 U.S.C. § 332–334, the President ordered the deployment of approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to the Los Angeles area with a narrowly circumscribed mission: to protect federal property, personnel, and citizens from imminent harm.

ARGUMENT

I. The President Has a Constitutional Duty to Protect Federal Property and Personnel

Article II, Section 3 mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”The Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2) establishes that federal laws and authority are paramount over state actions or refusals to act.

Where a state government affirmatively refuses to uphold public order or to protect federal property and agents within its borders, the President is not only empowered but compelled to intervene. See In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) (federal officers may act to protect the execution of federal law even when state actors refuse or obstruct).

II. Precedent Supports Federal Intervention Over State Obstruction

• In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Court rejected Arkansas’s claim that it could resist federal desegregation orders through local refusal to maintain order.

• In Little Rock (1957) and Oxford, Mississippi (1962), Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy deployed federal forces to enforce federal law in the face of state-sponsored or state-tolerated violence.

These precedents establish that state nullification through passivity—whereby a state knowingly allows lawlessness to obstruct federal functions—is constitutionally impermissible.

III. Federal Action Is Limited, Proportional, and Necessary

The federal deployment in question:

• Operates strictly within federal legal authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 332–334 (Insurrection Act).

• Seeks only to protect federal interests and citizens where state forces have abdicated their responsibilities.

• Respects the sovereignty of California in all areas where state action complies with constitutional obligations.

Far from constituting “an invasion” of state prerogatives, this deployment exemplifies the core function of the federal government: to guarantee to every state a republican form of government (Art. IV, § 4), and to ensure that federal operations are not paralyzed by local dereliction.

IV. A Contrary Ruling Would Undermine Constitutional Order

To uphold the state’s challenge would effectively authorize state executives to:

• Permit mob rule against disfavored federal laws or agents.

• Create zones of selective legal immunity.

• Hold federal governance hostage to political obstruction.

Such a result would fundamentally undermine the constitutional architecture of the United States and nullify the federal government’s capacity to protect its own institutions and citizens.

CONCLUSION

The President’s actions in deploying federal forces to Los Angeles are constitutionally justified, historically supported, and legally required under circumstances of state abdication.This Court should therefore reject Defendants’ claims and affirm the lawful exercise of federal authority to uphold national law, order, and civil peace.

Respectfully submitted,[Signature Block]Counsel for the United States of America