The Trump administration criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom in a legal filing over his attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from deploying the U.S. military in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles.

On Wednesday, in a 32-page opposition motion, the U.S. Department of Justice contended that the president does not require anyone’s approval to deploy the military for the protection of federal property and federal agents.

“There is no rioters’ veto to enforcement of federal law,” the motion reads. “And the President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law.”

Notably, and perhaps reflecting the haste of the filing, the government’s motion was filed with two pages of information clearly missing. The table of contents is markedly blank and the table of authorities section is effectively empty as well — containing only the word “INSERT” in brackets and yellow highlighting.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The motion opens with a shot across the bow accusing Newsom of trying to use the court system for political purposes.

“In a crass political stunt endangering American lives, the Governor of California seeks to use this Court to stop the President of the United States from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power to ensure that federal personnel and facilities are protected,” the opposition motion begins. “But, under the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the President is responsible for ensuring the protection of federal personnel and federal facilities.”

The underlying lawsuit in the case was filed Monday after the 45th and 47th president mobilized the military — at first just the National Guard — on Saturday. Trump assumed control of reserve forces in response to multiple incidents of property destruction as waves of Angelenos sparred with law enforcement amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions that started on Friday throughout the city and county of Los Angeles.

On Tuesday at 11 a.m., in response to reports the military would be used in conjunction with ICE for immigration-related purposes, Newsom filed an ex parte motion requesting a temporary restraining order by 1 p.m. that same day. The judge overseeing the case, however, nixed the Democratic governor’s request but set up a quick briefing schedule to consider the merits of the motion.

Now, the DOJ says Newsom’s claims are “baseless.”

“Neither the National Guard nor the Marines are engaged in law enforcement,” the opposition motion reads. “Rather, they are protecting law enforcement, consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel. Plaintiffs offer no contrary evidence, only a speculative assertion that the National Guard and Marines will be used for unlawful purposes in the future. That speculation cannot justify the extraordinary remedy they seek.”

In other words, on the facts, the DOJ is arguing military service members should and will be used to guard members of ICE as they perform immigration-related policing. The distinction is subtle but the Trump administration believes it makes a great deal of difference.

While Newsom’s bid for a restraining order is premised on the notion that troops will “unlawfully” be used for run-of-the-mill law enforcement purposes, the basic thrust of the lawsuit itself is that Trump lacked statutory authority to seize control of the Golden State’s National Guard contingent — some 4,000 members.

The statute in question, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, “has been invoked on its own only once before and for highly unusual circumstances,” Newsom’s lawsuit argues. Under the statute, the federalization of National Guard troops “shall be issued through the governors of the States.” And, to hear the plaintiffs tell it, this means the president must coordinate with a governor in order to effectuate such a transfer. Here, Newsom says, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cited the statute without properly understanding how it operates.

“The balance the Framers struck between the State’s power to control its own militia and the very narrow circumstances in which the federal government may take command and control of the militia serves as a vital check against federal overreach,” Newsom’s lawsuit argues. “Section 12406 does not provide the authority Defendants have claimed and cannot be the vehicle for their actions.”

In response, the DOJ says Newsom is the one who read the statute incorrectly.

The Trump administration hinges its argument on another section of the statute which reads: “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State.”

This section of the statute, the DOJ says, is more important than the one about the governors of states — but the lines work in tandem.

“Section 12406’s first sentence establishes the President’s unilateral authority to federalize Guardsmen,” the opposition motion reads. “Again, it reads: ‘[T]he President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State …’ The next sentence adds that ‘[o]rders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.’ The statute is thus clear that the orders are issued by the President, and they are conveyed through State officials. Nothing in the statute entitles a Governor to veto or impede a valid presidential order.”

Though the expedited request for the temporary restraining order was denied, the parties are still briefing their arguments on whether an injunction might be issued at a later time.

The DOJ’s motion says the statute in question cannot event grant the relief Newsom is requesting.

From the opposition motion, at length:

The groundless nature of Plaintiffs’ claims is further exposed by the mismatch between those claims and the relief they seek. They argue that the President improperly federalized the California National Guard — but their proposed injunction restricts only how those Guardsmen may be deployed. Specifically, they ask for an order that restricts the Guardsmen to protecting federal property, and federal personnel on such property, but not federal personnel outside federal property. There is no reading of Section 12406 that could justify that relief. Nor does that relief make any sense in view of the Posse Comitatus Act — if military forces may permissibly be used to protect federal officials and to ensure their safety (as they can), it should not matter whether those federal officials are inside a federal building or on a street a few blocks away.

“Plaintiffs’ proposed order reveals the true aim of their motion,” the opposition motion goes on. “It is not to return National Guardsmen to California’s control, or to vindicate the (misguided) rights they claim, but instead to prevent the federal government from protecting federal officers who are carrying out law-enforcement operations in Los Angeles. That interference is impermissible and groundless.”

In familiar fashion, the DOJ also says the court simply cannot even really exert jurisdiction over Trump’s orders to the military.

“Most fundamentally, Plaintiffs’ challenge to the conditions in California at the time of the presidential memorandum is unreviewable because it is a statutorily authorized discretionary judgment of the President,” the motion goes on. “The statute authorizes ‘the President’ to activate Guardsmen ‘in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.’ There is no textual basis in the statute for either the Court or Plaintiffs to second-guess the President’s determination that the conditions to call forth the Guard are met.”