In a filing to the court Wednesday, the DOJ argued California officials were attempting to stop the president “from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power to ensure that federal personnel and facilities are protected.”

“There is no rioters’ veto to enforcement of federal law,” the DOJ said in its filing. “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. Yet instead of working to bring order to Los Angeles, California and its Governor filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking a court order limiting the federal government’s ability to protect its property and officials.”

“The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief’s military directives – and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous,” the DOJ added.

The DOJ argued that Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard and send it to Los Angeles without Newsom’s consent was within his presidential duties under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

The filing pointed to former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1957 decision to federalize the National Guard to allow the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, arguing that then-Gov. Orval Faubus was not allowed to veto the decision.

“Section 12406 affords no veto to Governor Newsom over the President’s decision to call forth the guard, just as it afforded no veto to Governor Faubus when President Eisenhower last invoked the predecessor to Section 12406 to ensure that the enforcement of federal law was not obstructed,” the DOJ filing said.

The DOJ urged the court not to intervene by claiming the conditions for Trump to federalize the National Guard were met and that the federal court is barred from second-guessing the president’s decision. The DOJ filing pointed to the 1827 Supreme Court decision in Martin v. Mott, which held a president’s decision to call up militia for a national emergency was not something the judiciary may scrutinize.

California officials had urged the court to stop Trump’s actions, claiming his “use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest.”

JUDGE DECLINES TO IMMEDIATELY GRANT NEWSOM EMERGENCY ORDER BLOCKING TROOPS IN LA

The DOJ contends that the National Guard members and Marines deployed to Los Angeles are not “engaged in law enforcement” but “protecting law enforcement, consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel.”

The hearing over California’s bid to halt the president’s actions is scheduled for Thursday at 4:30 p.m. EDT in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Breyer gave California officials until Thursday at noon EDT to respond to the DOJ’s opposition filing.