This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

At the end of December, the tide turned decisively against the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard in three states over the objections of their governors, including California.

First, the U.S, Supreme Court on Dec. 23 sided with Illinois in its effort to block Trump from sending the National Guard to Chicago as part of its immigration crackdown. The court rejected the same legal reasoning that Trump used to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles last summer when protests erupted there.

“The government has not carried its burden to show that (the law) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the unsigned order from the Supreme Court read.

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

“The law got developed in a way that will prevent what happened over the last six months from ever happening again,” Bonta said. “I think this door is closed to Trump.”

The Interview

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

CalMatters: In terms of what California does next on this issue, is there anything that you all are doing in preparation for maybe (large-scale immigration raids) coming back, or perhaps an escalation in tactics like we’re seeing in Minnesota?

Bonta: We’re ready for anything. I think when you see incidents like we’re seeing in Minnesota, you have to assume that it could happen here in California.

You know, the Trump administration has made no bones about it. They are going after blue states and only blue states. And it’s political, it’s weaponization, it is partisan. They’re trying to own the libs and get the Dems. That’s their whole reason for being. And chief among them, the biggest state in the nation that has rejected Trump three times when he’s running, that sticks in his craw, he doesn’t like it.

CalMatters: In Los Angeles, I don’t recall them going door-to-door to, you know, to try and grab people like we’re seeing in Minnesota. Is this an escalation?

Bonta: I think they’re escalating. Minnesota shows it seems to be an escalation. I mean, there were some pieces that are the same, that are horrific and terrorizing and traumatizing and inappropriate, like removing license plates and being in a moving truck, pulling up to a Home Depot and having people run out of the back and all the profiling that was being done.

I think it’s an escalation, and they’re doing more. They’re really trying to hammer Minneapolis and Minnesota. It’s the home of the vice presidential candidate that ran against Trump, right? It’s the place where their racism is on full display with their attacks on Somalis. It’s where the YouTuber was trying to suggest that there were child care centers that didn’t have any children and there was something inappropriate with what he was showing.

So, Minnesota is a big target right now. California has always been, and I think they will put us back in the crosshairs at some point, and we’ll be ready.

CalMatters: What happened at the Supreme Court?

Bonta: The Supreme Court weighed in and basically said that the theory that the president had been operating on all along was completely unlawful and without foundation, truly a slap in the face and an embarrassing and devastating loss for Trump, who thinks he can always run to the Supreme Court and get what he wants.

And they followed the law, the law that we had argued always applied, and that there was no authority … to deploy the military, that the “regular forces” included the military forces. There was no analysis that they were unable to execute the law, and there was no authority for the military to be even executing any laws, given the Posse Comitatus Act (which prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force). So it was really a devastating and shocking loss for Trump.

CalMatters: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in L.A. in June, but ruled differently six months later. The district judge’s rationale was that Trump couldn’t re-federalize troops indefinitely.

But does that indicate to you that if the material conditions on the ground in L.A. were to change, similar to what the Trump administration cited in June when they claimed protesters were committing violent acts against federal personnel and property, the Trump administration could authorize a new deployment? Is that your understanding, or am I wrong on that?

Bonta: I think you’re wrong, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable thing to say, but let me just explain my thinking.

That case in L.A. in June was the very first one in the whole nation, and built into the exercise of authority of the federal administration here when it’s deploying the military is a great deal of deference. I think that deference was provided. It was the first case. There were mostly peaceful protests, but some violence, as you just mentioned.

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

And then they saw it again in D.C. Then they saw it again in Portland, and they saw it again in Illinois. The judges saw what was happening, and they saw what’s being said, and saw the rationale, they saw how Trump said that Portland was a war zone when it was a peaceful city, they see how Trump says, ‘I’m going to bring the military in to do the very thing the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits, to enforce criminal law, because these blue cities are not cracking down on crime.’ Exactly what the military cannot do!

And so they saw what he was doing with the military and I think they got a sense of where this was really headed and what was happening here. … So now that the U.S. Supreme Court has said you make sure “regular forces” is military forces, you need to make a showing that all the military forces cannot stop the concrete block from being thrown, or stop the Molotov cocktail from being thrown – he’ll never be able to show that – then you can bring in the National Guard.

CalMatters: Just one point on that. Circumstances being what they are today, again, if they were to mimic whatever happened in June, would that be a different conversation if the material conditions on the ground change in Los Angeles?

Bonta: Yeah, totally different. We’d go into court right away, we would win, we’d get an order, and the 9th Circuit would uphold it. Because there would be no showing that the military, all the military — I mean, thousands of military, there’s multiple military bases in California – that they couldn’t stop one person throwing concrete. I think our military is fully capable of that.

So, same exact circumstances from June happening today, 9th Circuit affirms it and does not stay it.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.