Today, a federal judge in California heard the state's challenge to President Trump's

deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to assist with enforcing

federal immigration laws.

The administration argues that the president had discretion to deploy the troops and

there in the city to protect law enforcement.

Meanwhile, California governor Gavin Newsom, who filed the temporary

restraining order earlier this week, has said the White House's actions are a, quote, power grab

that violates the U.S. Constitution. Joining me now to discuss this further is Liza Goitin.

She's senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program.

Liza, welcome back to the program, and thanks for joining us.

Let's start with this legal fight now over the federal deployment of troops in response to those protests against immigration rate.

Walk us through the administration's legal main argument here.

How are they justifying the deployment of those troops?

So the administration is relying on an obscure statute that has actually never before been used

as a standalone authority to quell civil unrest. That's a law that requires, in order to quell civil

unrest, that there be a rebellion against

government authority, or that it be impossible for the president to execute the law without

deploying the military.

Now, those conditions don't really seem to have been met here, but what the government is

arguing is that the

court cannot review whether the president's findings were correct or not, that as long as the president

says that there was a rebellion, there was a rebellion. So that's really the main argument. The

...