Calif. Gov. Newsom Asks USDC Judge Beyer To Continue Move Forward, To Decide Statutory Natl. Guard Prohibition Claims -- Even As Ninth Looks At A Partial Stay...

It must be said: Trump thinks foot-dragging is his best strategy.

He knows full-well what he is doing is prohibited by law. So he just tries to drag it out, as long as possible. Disgusting.

So too, here with his rolling the National Guard and US Marines into blue cities, uninvited. Damn. Here's the latest -- (with a response due from Team Tangerine, by Thursday night, in San Fran):

. . .In response to the Court’s Order staying proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 192, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court proceed to adjudicate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ August 5, 2025 federalization order violates 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Specifically, Plaintiffs request the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to file, and order expedited briefing on, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the following schedule:

➣ September 26, 2025: Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment

➣ October 3, 2025: Defendants’ opposition

➣ October 8, 2025: Plaintiffs’ reply

➣ October 10, 2025: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion

Even if this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction while Defendants’ appeal of the Court’s TRO order is pending, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim on the merits. Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982) (“We hold that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not stay the proceedings, as it is firmly established that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case.”). The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that district courts need not “delay trial preparation to await an interim ruling on a preliminary injunction.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 583 (9th Cir. 2018). This is in part because “the fully developed factual record may be materially different from that initially before the district court.” Id. (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1003 (9th Cir. 2012)).

That is the case here, where Plaintiffs’ current challenge under section 12406 is based on new facts and evidence not before the Ninth Circuit in the pending appeal. Thus, the Court may, and in fact should, adjudicate the merits of Plaintiffs’ new challenge even as the Ninth Circuit considers the interlocutory appeal, especially given the urgency of the relief Plaintiffs seek. See Global Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058-1059 (9th Cir. 2007). . . .

We will keep an eye on it, as ever. Grinning. . . .

नमस्ते