A federal appeals court panel Tuesday sharply questioned Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s (D-CA) lawsuit aimed at barring President Donald Trump from federalizing the California National Guard and deploying it to Los Angeles.

Newsom and California officials filed a lawsuit against Trump last week, with U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issuing a temporary restraining order ruling that Trump must return the California National Guard’s control to the state. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit quickly paused that order pending Tuesday’s virtual hearing.

Recommended Stories

• DOJ axes 4,000 jobs including plans to end 1,500 FBI positions
• Mike Lindell to pay $2.3 million to former employee of leading voting company for defamation
• NYC mayoral candidate Brad Lander arrested by ICE at immigration hearing

Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller, and Jennifer Sung, two Trump appointees and a Biden appointee, respectively, appeared skeptical in their questioning of Samuel Harbourt, a lawyer for Newsom and the state of California, over the state’s arguments.

Sung questioned Harbourt on the state’s argument regarding the 1827 Supreme Court decision in Martin v. Mott, which held that a president’s decision to call up militia for a national emergency was not something the judiciary could scrutinize. She asked how the state deals with the precedent from the high court, “seemingly rejected the exact argument that you’re making,” and noted how it dealt with similar phrasing.

Harbourt responded by saying the 1827 decision dealt with foreign policy, unlike the current legal dispute over the California National Guard and unrest in Los Angeles surrounding immigration operations.

The lawyer for California also urged the appeals court to be “quite cautious about relying on older authorities in this area,” citing the change in laws and legal rulings since Martin. Miller responded by telling Harbourt that it was “maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,” but questioned what the appeal court is supposed to do.

The judges also questioned the state’s assertion that Trump did not properly order the federalization of the California National Guard “through” the governor. The Justice Department has argued that issuing the order through the California adjutant general fulfilled the statutory requirement. Harbourt argued that the DOJ’s finding is “not our understanding of that provision of state laws.”

When Harbourt pointed to an amicus brief filed by former military officials calling for the court to return the California National Guard to Newsom, Sung questioned if the brief claimed the president’s actions were unlawful or rather it was “bad for policy.”

The Tuesday hearing before the 9th Circuit panel starkly contrasted last week’s hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Breyer grilled the DOJ over the order to federalize the California National Guard.

During Tuesday’s hearing, DOJ lawyer Brett Shumate faced questions from the panel about the department’s position on the court’s ability to review the president’s order.

“Our view is that this statute commits the decision whether to call up the forces to the president’s unreviewable discretion. So no, there’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision,” Shumate said. “And I think it’s important to note that the statute here is very similar to the statute at issue in the Martin case that we’ve cited.”

TRUMP SECURES KEY APPELLATE COURT WINS AMID LOWER COURT SETBACKS

Shumate insisted the order federalizing the California National Guard was within the president’s discretion. He also argued that the National Guard and Marines deployed to Los Angeles were not engaging in law enforcement activity but were protecting federal property and federal immigration agents.

The appeals court did not offer a timeline for when it would decide whether to leave the stay in place, but did note it was aware Breyer scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction for Friday.