THE STEADY STATE FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA CHALLENGE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DOMESTIC MILITARY DEPLOYMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – August 19, 2025 – The Steady State, a nonpartisan association of more than 325 former senior U.S. government officials, today filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in support of Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California in their challenge to President Donald Trump’s domestic deployment of U.S. military forces.

The brief urges the Court to uphold constitutional and statutory limits on the use of the military in civilian law enforcement, warning that such deployments—particularly without a request from state authorities—pose grave risks to democracy and echo patterns seen in authoritarian regimes abroad.

“Our members have spent decades defending the United States against foreign threats and working within the legal guardrails that keep military power under civilian control,” said Steven A. Cash, Executive Director for The Steady State. “Using the armed forces to enforce domestic policy without clear legal authority undermines those safeguards, erodes public trust, and threatens the constitutional balance of powers.”

Drawing on members’ first-hand experiences confronting authoritarian governments around the world, the brief highlights:

• Historical Precedent: Echoing Justice Robert Jackson’s landmark concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the brief emphasizes that unchecked presidential use of military power domestically has been a hallmark of authoritarian governments..
  
  

• International Comparisons: The Steady State cites examples from Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, and other nations where military deployments have been used to suppress dissent and entrench political control.
  
  

• U.S. Credibility Abroad: The brief warns that such actions diminish America’s ability to advocate for democracy globally, as authoritarian leaders point to U.S. domestic actions to justify their own repressive measures.

The Steady State’s filing focuses specifically on deployments of the National Guard and other armed forces under direct presidential control, noting that these differ fundamentally from deployments requested by state governors in response to natural disasters or genuine law enforcement crises.

“The Constitution was designed not only to grant power, but to keep it from getting out of hand,” the brief states, quoting Justice Jackson. “The Court must be vigilant in ensuring that emergency powers remain compatible with freedom.”

The case, Gavin Newsom, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. (No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB), challenges the legality of the President’s deployment of military personnel in California and the scope of executive authority under the Posse Comitatus Act and related statutes.