Case: Newsom v. Trump

3:25-cv-04870 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 9, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged the federal deployment of the California National Guard to protect federal property and immigration officials from protesters in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. On June 9, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California filed suit in the Northern District of North California, challenging recent actions by President Trump in deploying the National Guard in the Los Angeles area. On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers carried out multiple enforcement actions in and around Los Angeles, leading to the arrest of around 44 persons with 70-80 people detained. The same day as the arrests, crowds gathered at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles to protest the Trump Administration and its immigration agenda. The complaint alleged that, while some protestors engaged in violence against property and law enforcement, the majority were peaceful and non-violent. Protests continued on June 7 and June 8.

The complaint alleged that Los Angeles police and sheriffs had responded to the protests and had dispersed several crowds at various places during the three days of protests. However, on the evening of June 7, despite a message on social media by Gavin Newsom stating that it was unnecessary, President Trump issued a memorandum that said because of "numerous incidents of violence and disorder" that had taken place in response to ICE actions, he was calling into service members of the National Guard. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the President is allowed to call out the National Guard if one of three conditions is met: (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

Citing this statute, President Trump authorized the Secretary of Defense to (1) "coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority,” (2) call out up to 2,000 National Guard personnel for up to 60 days, and (3) use them to perform protective activities for the protection of federal personnel and property.

That same evening, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, sent a memorandum to the Adjutant General of California, who commands the California National Guard under the Governor. Relying on President Trump's memo, and without the consent of the Governor, Secretary Hegseth called into service 2,000 members of the California National Guard for 60 days of service. Control of the Guard members was handed over to the General of the U.S. Northern Command, and the Guard began to arrive in Los Angeles on June 8. On June 9, Secretary Hegseth called into federal service another 2,000 Guard members, again without the consent of the California Governor.

Represented by the State's Attorney General, the plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of Defense. The plaintiffs alleged that the President's and the agency's actions were ultra vires and exceeded the scope of their authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and the Posse Comitatus Act. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants violated the Tenth Amendment and Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that the agency's action violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare President Trump's memo, and both of Secretary Hegseth's orders relying on it, to be unlawful, to enjoin the Department of Defense from deploying the National Guard, and to award court costs.

The case was assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. On June 10, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asking the court to maintain the status quo "by temporarily enjoining Defendants from ordering or deploying the active-duty members of the military and federalized National Guard soldiers to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities beyond the immediate vicinity of federal buildings or other federal real property." The court scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for June 12.

The district court issued a TRO ordering the return of control of the California National Guard to the State, holding the case justiciable and concluding that the statutory prerequisites for federalization under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were not met. The court found no rebellion, rejected the government’s argument that partial obstacles or generalized risk satisfied the statute’s requirement that the President be “unable” to execute the laws, and held that the federalization orders failed to comply with § 12406’s requirement that they issue through the Governor. The court also concluded that the unlawful federalization likely violated the Tenth Amendment by interfering with the State’s police powers, but stayed its order briefly to allow an appeal. 2025 WL 1663345

The government appealed on June 12, 2025, and the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay that evening. While agreeing that the case was judicially reviewable, the court of appeals held that review under § 12406 is highly deferential and concluded that the government was likely to prevail, finding that the statute does not require complete incapacity to execute the laws and that sufficient interference with federal operations supported the President’s determination. The court also held that the statute’s procedural requirement was likely satisfied because the federalization order was transmitted through the state adjutant general acting in the Governor’s name, and it set an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. 2025 WL 1712930

On September 2, 2025, the district court held that defendants had violated the Posse Comitatus Act and entered injunctive relief, finding that federalized National Guard units engaged in prohibited law enforcement activities in Los Angeles pursuant to a top-down directive and that § 12406 did not create an exception to the Act. The court enjoined further use of the National Guard to execute domestic law, stayed the injunction until September 12, and entered judgment for plaintiffs on the Posse Comitatus Act claims. 2025 WL 2501619.

Also on September 2, plaintiffs moved to enjoin an August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of 300 Guard members; the government appealed, and on September 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to preserve the status quo pending further review. 2025 WL 2501619.

On September 9, 2025, the district court stayed all proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court concluded that, given the fragmented procedural posture of the case and the Ninth Circuit’s pending review of closely related issues arising from the earlier federalization orders, it was uncertain whether jurisdiction over the motion properly lay with the district court or the court of appeals.

On October 22, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, leaving in place the panel’s June 19, 2025 stay order allowing continued federalization of the California National Guard pending appeal. The court’s decision reflects the view that presidential determinations under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 are subject to highly deferential judicial review and that, at least at the stay stage, the President need not be completely unable to enforce federal law before invoking the statute.

On October 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied as unnecessary Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ challenge to Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court explained that although an interlocutory appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over aspects of a case involved in the appeal, it does not bar the district court from proceeding on distinct issues not before the appellate court.

After the Ninth Circuit clarified that the district court retained jurisdiction over challenges to later federalization orders, Judge Charles Breyer lifted the stay on November 4, 2025, and set an expedited briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court emphasized that the renewed motion should account for post-September developments, including the transfer of federalized California Guard members to Oregon and Illinois.

Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion on November 13, 2025, arguing that continued federalization and deployment of the National Guard in and around Los Angeles lacked any lawful basis under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. They contended that even if isolated violence in June justified the initial deployment, that exigency had long since dissipated, and § 12406 does not authorize indefinite or geographically untethered military deployments based on speculative future risk. Plaintiffs further argued that the statute requires a present inability to execute the laws using regular forces, not merely a residual risk of interference, and that continued federalization therefore violates both § 12406 and the Tenth Amendment.

On December 10, 2025, Judge Breyer granted Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Trump Administration’s continued federalization of California National Guard troops under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court held that both the August 5 and October 16, 2025 federalization orders were judicially reviewable and likely unlawful because the statutory preconditions for federalization were no longer met. Specifically, the court found no colorable basis to conclude that the President was presently “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” emphasizing that the June protests had long subsided, ICE operations were proceeding without meaningful interference, and most Guard members had already been withdrawn without incident. The court rejected the government’s argument that once an initial federalization is valid, all subsequent extensions are unreviewable, warning that such a theory would permit indefinite federal control of state militias and undermine federalism and separation-of-powers principles. Applying even the Ninth Circuit’s highly deferential standard, the court concluded that the continued deployment rested on speculative future risks rather than a present exigency and therefore exceeded the President’s delegated authority under § 12406. Accordingly, the court ordered the return of control of the remaining federalized California National Guard members to the Governor and enjoined further deployments absent a new, legally sufficient justification. 2025 WL 3533818.

On December 11, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, seeking review of the district court’s December 10 preliminary injunction order.

	Document
1 3:25-cv-04870	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	June 9, 2025	June 9, 2025 Complaint
12 3:25-cv-04870	Defendants' Notice Regarding Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
8 3:25-cv-04870	Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
25 3:25-cv-04870	Defendants' Corrected Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order	June 11, 2025	June 11, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
64 3:25-cv-04870	Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order	June 12, 2025	June 12, 2025 Order/Opinion 786 F.Supp.3d 1235
77 3:25-cv-04870	Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	June 16, 2025	June 16, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
32 25-03727	Order U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	June 19, 2025	June 19, 2025 Order/Opinion 141 F.4th 1032
56 25-03727	Brief for Appellants Newsom v. Trump et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	July 22, 2025	July 22, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
176 3:25-cv-04870	Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief Newsom et al. v. Trump et al.	Sept. 2, 2025	Sept. 2, 2025 Order/Opinion
186 3:25-cv-04870	Partial Judgment	Sept. 2, 2025	Sept. 2, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 2501619

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions Donald Trump	This memorandum for the Secretary of Defense outlines President Trump's call for Federal service members and units of the National Guard to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit…	June 7, 2025	June 7, 2025 https://www.whitehouse.gov/...
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call 10 U.S. Code § 12406	10 U.S. Code § 12406 outlines the President of the United States authority to call members of the National Guard to repel invasion, suppress a rebellion, or execute the laws of the United States.	Oct. 5, 1994	Oct. 5, 1994 https://www.law.cornell.edu/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants, (Filing Fee: $405.00, receipt number ACANDC-20769160). Injunction against the US government/official or APA vacatur requested. Filed by State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom. (Faer, Laura) (Filed on 6/9/2025) Modified on 6/10/2025 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2025)	June 9, 2025	June 9, 2025 Clearinghouse
2	Proposed Summons. (Faer, Laura) (Filed on 6/9/2025) (Entered: 06/09/2025)	June 9, 2025	June 9, 2025 RECAP
3	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Nicholas David Espiritu on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Filed on 6/9/2025) (Entered: 06/09/2025)	June 9, 2025	June 9, 2025
	Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Change/Withdrawal of Attorney	June 9, 2025	June 9, 2025
4	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Megan Richards on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Richards, Megan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
4	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Megan Richards on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Richards, Megan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
4	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Megan Richards on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Richards, Megan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
5	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Christopher David Edelman on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
5	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Christopher David Edelman on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
5	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Christopher David Edelman on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
6	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Eric J Hamilton on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Hamilton, Eric) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
6	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Eric J Hamilton on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Hamilton, Eric) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
6	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Eric J Hamilton on behalf of Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense (Hamilton, Eric) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
7	Case assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
7	Case assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
7	Case assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
8	First Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Gavin Newsom, State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Declaration of Brian Olmstead, # 3 Declaration of Paul S. Eck, # 4 [Proposed] Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue)(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025) 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for a View on RECAP 2 Declaration of Brian Olmstead View on RECAP 3 Declaration of Paul S. Eck View on RECAP 4 [Proposed] Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Wh View on RECAP	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Clearinghouse
9	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/12/2025. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/19/2025 at 8:30 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025) 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording View on RECAP	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
10	Summons Issued as to Pete Hegseth, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Defense. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
10	Summons Issued as to Pete Hegseth, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Defense. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
10	Summons Issued as to Pete Hegseth, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Defense. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
11	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Brendan Hamme on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Hamme, Brendan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
11	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Brendan Hamme on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Hamme, Brendan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
11	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Brendan Hamme on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Hamme, Brendan) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
12	NOTICE by Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense re 8 First Ex Parte Application Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Clearinghouse
12	NOTICE by Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense re 8 First Ex Parte Application Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Clearinghouse
12	NOTICE by Donald J. Trump, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Department of Defense re 8 First Ex Parte Application Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Edelman, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 Clearinghouse
13	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Nicholas Reiss Green on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Green, Nicholas) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
13	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Nicholas Reiss Green on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Green, Nicholas) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
13	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Nicholas Reiss Green on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Green, Nicholas) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
14	ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/10/2025. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
14	ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/10/2025. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
14	ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/10/2025. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025 RECAP
15	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Marissa Suzanne Malouff on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Malouff, Marissa) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
15	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Marissa Suzanne Malouff on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Malouff, Marissa) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
16	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Kendal Leigh Micklethwaite on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Micklethwaite, Kendal) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
16	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Kendal Leigh Micklethwaite on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Micklethwaite, Kendal) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
17	CLERK'S NOTICE: (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.). This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at crbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than June 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM PST.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
17	CLERK'S NOTICE: (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.). This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at crbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than June 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM PST.General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025
18	NOTICE of Appearance filed by Luke Freedman on behalf of Gavin Newsom, State of California (Freedman, Luke) (Filed on 6/10/2025) (Entered: 06/10/2025)	June 10, 2025	June 10, 2025

Case: Newsom v. Trump

3:25-cv-04870 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details