Newsom Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Antisemitic Firing

This article examines the firing of Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram from the California National Guard, the lawsuit he filed accusing Governor Gavin Newsom and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers of antisemitic harassment and retaliation, a judge’s ruling allowing the case to proceed, and how this episode might affect Newsom’s national ambitions.

Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram says he was removed from command after defending a Jewish subordinate against antisemitic remarks by Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, who was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Magram has filed a lawsuit alleging a coordinated campaign of harassment that culminated in his dismissal in November 2022. The timing is politically sensitive because Newsom is widely viewed as having presidential ambitions for 2028.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge refused to dismiss most of Magram’s claims and allowed six of eight counts to move toward trial, ordering the Newsom administration to respond to discovery and deposition requests. The ruling pushed back on the state’s legal argument that the Feres doctrine—which bars many military-related suits—should block the entire case. That decision means the court will now examine documents and testimony that have been withheld so far, and discovery could reveal internal communications and directives tied to the dismissal.

The core allegation here is serious: Magram says Newsom “facilitated and ratified” a campaign of antisemitic discrimination and retaliation driven by Beevers after Magram defended a fellow Jew from Beevers’s alleged rants. The lawsuit says the conduct included harassment and discrimination that federal and state law should not permit, no matter the military context. If discovery produces emails or memos showing coordination at the top levels of the administration, the political fallout could be significant.

Former brigadier general Jeffrey Magram is suing the state of California and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, a Newsom appointee who has faced allegations of denigrating a Jewish subordinate as a “kike” lawyer. Magram alleges that Newsom “facilitated and ratified” a Beevers-driven campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against him that started after Magram defended a fellow Jew from Beevers’s anti-Semitic rants and ended with Newsom’s office signing an order to dismiss Magram in November 2022.

Sacramento Superior Court judge Richard K. Sueyoshi rejected the Newsom administration’s efforts to quash Magram’s lawsuit in an Oct. 31 ruling authorizing six of its eight counts to proceed toward a trial. The ruling will force the Newsom administration to comply with document discovery and deposition requests that Magram says have been ignored since he filed his lawsuit in January 2024.

The state tried to use the Feres doctrine to kill the case, arguing servicemembers cannot sue over injuries tied to duties, but the judge said that claim was misplaced. He wrote that Feres was not meant to provide cover for alleged campaigns of discrimination and harassment at the top of a state military command. That legal rebuke opens the door to depositions and document requests that could force testimony from senior officials and political operatives.

The Newsom administration has yet to respond to any of Magram’s allegations since he filed his lawsuit in January 2024, instead arguing in motions that the case should be dismissed entirely because of the Feres doctrine, a legal doctrine that arose from a 1950 Supreme Court case that bars servicemembers from suing the military for personal injuries sustained in the performance of their duties.

But Sueyoshi, the Sacramento Superior Court judge, said the Newsom administration’s interpretation of the law was incorrect. The judge wrote in his Oct. 31 ruling that the Feres doctrine was not intended to shield the military from the legal consequences of subjecting a general to a campaign of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, as Magram alleges in his lawsuit.

Discovery can be messy and revealing. When depositions begin, expect witnesses to be asked about who knew what and when, and whether directives came from Newsom’s office or other senior staff. The longer the process goes, the greater the chance that documents and sworn testimony will show whether this was a personnel dispute or something coordinated at higher levels.

From a political angle, this matter lands squarely in Newsom’s lane. Any appearance that an administration tolerated or enabled discrimination will be weaponized by opponents, and the optics are worse given the administration’s public ambitions. Settling the case might make the headline risk go away, but it would also raise questions about why a settlement was needed if the administration stands by its actions.

There’s another reason this story matters beyond the courtroom: how leaders handle allegations of bias shapes public trust in institutions that must be impartial, including the military. The Guard’s leadership must be beyond reproach, and if the evidence shows misconduct or tolerance of antisemitism, that’s a governance failure. The coming months of litigation will test both legal arguments and political narratives as facts come into view.