Rob Bonta: How CA Can Stop Trump from Deploying National Guard in Court ‘They’re Escalating’: Interview with Rob Bonta on Trump’s Immigration Offensive

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

At the end of December, the situation changed radically against the decision of the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard to three states, despite the objections of their governors, including California.

First, on December 23, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois in its attempt to stop Trump from sending in the National Guard in Chicago as part of his offensive against immigration. The court rejected the same legal reasoning Trump used to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles last summer when protests broke out there.

“The government has failed to meet its burden of showing that (the law) allows the president to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the Supreme Court’s order said.

The administration then quietly withdrew its appeal of a federal court ruling that the president could not keep California National Guard troops under federal control forever. That withdrawal represented a victory for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had filed an amicus curiae brief in the Illinois case.

“The law is designed in such a way to prevent a repeat of what happened in the last six months,” Bonta said. “I think that door is closed for Trump.

CalMatters spoke with Bonta this week about those cases and his thoughts on The Trump administration’s current focus on Minneapolis . The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

CalMatters: In terms of what the state of California is going to do next on this issue, is there anything they’re doing in preparation for a possible (large-scale immigration raids) return or maybe an escalation of tactics like we’re seeing in Minnesota?

Bonta: We are ready for anything. I think when you see incidents like these in Minnesota, you have to assume it could happen here in California.

You know, the Trump administration hasn’t hidden anything. They go after the democratic states and only after them. And it is political, it is instrumentalization, it is partisan. They are trying to control liberals and democrats. That’s the reason it exists. Above all, the nation’s largest state, which rejected Trump three times during his campaign, worries him, he doesn’t like it.

CalMatters: In Los Angeles I don’t remember them going door to door to try to catch people like we see in Minnesota. Is this an escalation?

Bonta: I think they are escalating. Minnesota shows that there appears to be an escalation. I mean, there were some such horrible, scary, traumatizing, inappropriate moments, like removing license plates, using moving trucks, pulling up to Home Depot and seeing people running out the back, and all the racial profiling that was going on.

I think this is an escalation and they are doing more. They are trying to hit Minneapolis and Minnesota hard. This is the home of the vice presidential candidate running against Trump, right? This is where his racism is on full display with his attacks on Somalis. Here, the YouTuber was trying to imply that there are childcare facilities without children and that there is something inappropriate about what he is showing.

Minnesota is a big target right now. California always has been, and I think at some point they’ll bring us back into their sights and we’ll be good to go.

CalMatters: What happened at the Supreme Court?

Bonta: The Supreme Court intervened and basically said that the theory the president has been operating on all this time is completely illegal and baseless, truly a slap in the face and an embarrassing and devastating loss for Trump, who believes he can always go to the Supreme Court and get what he wants.

And they followed the law, the law that we claimed always applied and that they had no authority to deploy the military, that “regular forces” included the military forces. Their inability to enforce the law was not discussed, and that they didn’t even have the authority to enforce any law given the Posse Comitatus Act (which prevents the president from using the military as a national police force). So it was a devastating, shocking defeat for Trump.

CalMatters: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit authorized the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles in June, but issued a different decision six months later. The district judge’s reasoning was that Trump could not refederalize the troops indefinitely.

But does that tell you that if material conditions in Los Angeles change, as the Trump administration alluded to in June when it claimed protesters were using violence against federal personnel and property, the Trump administration could authorize a new deployment? Is that how you understand it or am I wrong?

Bonta: I think you’re wrong, but I don’t think it’s crazy to say so. Let me explain my reasoning.

In the case of Los Angeles in June, it was the first in the entire country, and the exercise of the authority of the federal administration here in the deployment of the armed forces implies great respect. I think that respect was shown. This was the first case. There were mostly peaceful protests, but there was also violence, as we just mentioned.

It was the first time they saw what the Trump administration was doing here.

And then they saw him again in Washington, DC. Then they saw him again in Portland and saw him again in Illinois. The judges saw what was happening, what was being said and the justification. They saw Trump call Portland a war zone when it was a peaceful city. They watched as Trump said, “I’m going to use the military to do exactly what the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits, to enforce the criminal law because these Democratic cities are not fighting crime.” Exactly what the military cannot do!

And then they saw what I was doing with the military and I think they got an idea of ​​where this was really going and what was going on here. …So now that the US Supreme Court has said that you have to make sure that “regular forces” are military forces, you have to prove that all military forces cannot stop the throwing of the concrete block or Molotov cocktail (you will never be able to prove it), then you can turn to the National Guard.

CalMatters: Just a note on this. Given the current circumstances, if what happened in June were to happen again, would the conversation be different if the material conditions on the ground in Los Angeles changed?

Bonta: Yes, completely different. We will immediately go to court, win, get an injunction, and the Ninth Circuit will uphold it. Because there will be no evidence that the military, the entire military – which means thousands of military personnel, there are multiple military bases in California – cannot stop a single person from throwing concrete. I think our army is fully capable of this.

So the exact same circumstances from June are happening today, the 9th Circuit upholds and does not stay.