LOS ANGELES, United States — A federal judge has moved to block the Trump administration’s deployment of California’s National Guard to Los Angeles, declaring the move illegal and ordering control of the troops to be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom. However, the judge’s order will not take immediate effect, as the administration promptly filed an appeal.
California initiated legal action against President Donald Trump on Monday, challenging his directive to deploy the troops without Governor Newsom’s consent.
Trump had stated his intention to send the troops — typically under the governor’s authority — to prevent Los Angeles from “burning down” amidst protests against his immigration crackdown.
Local authorities, conversely, maintained that they had the situation under control and did not require military intervention.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s decision hinged on whether President Trump had adhered to the law established by Congress concerning the deployment of a state’s National Guard. In his ruling, the judge unequivocally stated: “He did not.”
Breyer continued, “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
The judge, however, stayed the order until Friday afternoon to allow the Trump administration time to file an appeal, which it did almost immediately.
Governor Newsom took to social media on Thursday afternoon, posting that “the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.”
The Trump administration’s justification for taking over California’s National Guard was to restore order and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during operations in Los Angeles targeting individuals believed to be in the country illegally.
Despite Governor Newsom’s objections, Trump had ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to assist in quelling the unrest. Some of these Guard troops were authorized to detain individuals until police could make arrests.
The last instance of a president deploying the National Guard without a governor’s consent occurred more than 50 years ago, during the civil rights era. It is far more common for a governor to activate troops for natural disasters or other emergencies and subsequently request federal assistance.
During a packed courtroom session on Thursday, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued before Judge Breyer that Governor Newsom’s consultation was not required for Trump’s order.
“Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it,” Shumate stated. “There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.”
Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, sharply countered, “No.” He clarified, “The president isn’t the commander-in-chief of the National Guard,” though he acknowledged there were specific times and situations where the president could assume command of the troops.
Breyer, visibly emphasizing his points with a light blue bowtie, referenced the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, at one point holding up a booklet copy of the document. “We’re talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority,” he asserted. “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”
The Trump administration cited a law that permits the president to call the National Guard into federal service during a “rebellion.” However, California’s lawsuit contended that the protests, which had spanned nearly a week in Los Angeles—resulting in over 300 arrests and the temporary closure of a major freeway—did not meet the threshold of a rebellion.
The lawsuit explicitly stated: “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years.”
