FnF News
Title:
Legal Shockwave: Trump Allies Blast Federal Judge’s Tenth Amendment Ruling as “Ideological Overreach” in National Guard Case
By Khadija Khan | FNF News | June 13, 2025
In the aftermath of a stunning federal court ruling that temporarily blocked Donald Trump from asserting control over California’s National Guard, critics on the right are accusing the judiciary of overstepping its authority and reviving a constitutional clause long considered politically dormant: the Tenth Amendment.
The decision, handed down Thursday by U.S. District Judge Lillian Mercado, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Trump and his political operatives from issuing directives to National Guard units not under federal command. The court cited the Tenth Amendment as the foundation for its decision—reigniting a complex legal and political debate over state sovereignty, federalism, and the limits of executive influence after a presidency ends.
“This ruling is not only dangerous—it’s laughably misguided,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), one of Trump’s closest House allies. “No court has relied on the Tenth Amendment in any serious sense in decades. This judge is inventing legal precedent from thin air.”
What the Ruling Says
The 42-page ruling found that Trump’s attempts to ‘federalize’ National Guard units in California while being a private citizen were unconstitutional, stating bluntly that his actions violated the separation of powers and “pose a clear threat to the sovereignty of the state.”
“The Tenth Amendment exists to prevent exactly this kind of political encroachment,” Judge Mercado wrote. “The former president has no statutory or constitutional authority to issue military orders to units under state command.”
Legal scholars note that the judge’s reliance on the Tenth Amendment is rare, if not unprecedented, in modern national security disputes. Typically, cases involving military command and jurisdiction fall under statutory analysis of the Insurrection Act or Title 10 of the U.S. Code, not the Bill of Rights.
Conservatives Sound the Alarm
The decision triggered a fierce backlash from Trump-aligned conservatives, who view the ruling not just as a legal rebuke—but as a deliberate political ambush by a federal judiciary they perceive as increasingly aligned with Democratic interests.
“Let’s be honest,” said Fox News host Jesse Watters. “This isn’t about the Tenth Amendment. This is about blocking Trump at every turn, using obscure constitutional theories to do it.”
Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation called the ruling “a judicial stunt” and warned that its implications could undercut legitimate federal authority in future crises.
“The danger here is that future presidents—actual sitting presidents—may be hamstrung from acting in a national emergency because some judge decides that state sovereignty overrides federal responsibility,” wrote legal scholar John Yoo, architect of the Bush-era torture memos, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
What Is the Tenth Amendment, and Why Does It Matter Now?
Adopted in 1791, the Tenth Amendment affirms that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. While it’s often cited symbolically in debates over states’ rights—from marijuana legalization to gun laws—it has rarely formed the basis of major federal court decisions in the modern era.
In this case, Judge Mercado invoked the Tenth to argue that California retains full command over its National Guard unless properly federalized by a sitting president under specific legal conditions. Since Trump is no longer president—and no formal federalization process was followed—the court ruled that his actions constitute “an unauthorized seizure of state power.”
“This is not a legal gray area,” Mercado wrote. “It is black-letter constitutional law.”
Yet critics argue that the court is cherry-picking legal doctrine to thwart Trump’s political momentum.
“This is a bad decision based on a shallow reading of history and federalism,” said Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer who has defended Trump in past legal battles. “It’s judicial activism dressed up as constitutional conservatism.”
Progressives Welcome the Ruling—Cautiously
On the left, many hailed the ruling as a bold reaffirmation of state sovereignty and a necessary check on Trump’s creeping authoritarianism. But even some progressive legal scholars admitted surprise at the court’s reliance on the Tenth Amendment.
“It’s rare to see a progressive judge use the Tenth this way,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley Law. “But the logic is solid. If a private citizen can command a state military unit, the Constitution means nothing.”
Governor Gavin Newsom framed the ruling as a defense of California’s right to govern without interference from a former president attempting to revive executive power by proxy.
“This is about the rule of law,” Newsom said. “If we let Donald Trump call the shots from Mar-a-Lago, what’s next? Private militias? Shadow cabinets?”
Trump’s “Shadow Presidency” Strategy
The court’s ruling also reignited scrutiny over what many analysts describe as Trump’s “shadow presidency”—a network of loyal officials, former generals, and conservative state leaders working in lockstep to execute national policy goals, despite lacking formal authority.
Since leaving office in 2021, Trump has maintained active control over a large media machine, donor network, and quasi-governmental infrastructure, issuing foreign policy statements, immigration “directives,” and even calling for military action—all without official power.
“The fact that this had to go to court is already a red flag,” said political scientist Ruth Ben-Ghiat. “We’re witnessing a post-presidency like no other in American history—a parallel government with no accountability.”
Critics argue that if the court had not intervened, Trump might have succeeded in sparking a constitutional crisis—especially given reports that several California National Guard officers had begun coordinating with Trump’s allies ahead of the ruling.
Legal Analysts: A New Precedent Has Been Set
While many on the right are fuming over the court’s logic, legal analysts say the decision could create a new judicial standard for post-presidential behavior and unauthorized influence over military or quasi-military state functions.
“This case was never just about the National Guard,” said former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade. “It’s about defining the limits of political power after office. Trump wants to act like a president without being one. This court said, ‘No more.’”
Some also speculate that the ruling could influence other pending litigation—especially in states where Trump-backed governors have granted the former president unprecedented political access or power over state affairs.
What’s Next?
A full preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 28. If the injunction is granted, the court would permanently bar Trump and any surrogate from exerting influence or issuing orders to California’s military institutions.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has opened a review of all intergovernmental military communications in California and several other states to determine whether Trump’s directives violated federal law or endangered public safety.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Biden supports the ruling “as a necessary step to uphold our Constitution and protect lawful governance from unauthorized interference.”
The Bigger Picture: Judicial Legitimacy Under Pressure
As the courts become increasingly central in America’s political conflicts—ruling on everything from abortion to election law—the legitimacy of the judiciary is itself being called into question. This latest ruling, while celebrated by some, has fueled concerns that judges are becoming de facto arbiters of political power.
“Every time Trump pushes boundaries, the courts get dragged into it,” said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “Eventually, people will stop seeing judges as neutral—and that’s dangerous for democracy.”
For now, the decision marks a rare instance of a court stepping directly into the political arena to block a former president from using military institutions for political ends. Whether this strengthens or fractures public trust in the judiciary remains to be seen.