Judge Blocks Trump's National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles

On September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who challenged the federalization of the state's National Guard without his consent. In June 2025, President Trump ordered approximately 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to escalating protests against federal immigration enforcement actions. These protests, which began peacefully, escalated into confrontations with law enforcement following a series of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants.

Judge Breyer's decision highlighted that the deployed troops engaged in activities such as crowd control, establishing security perimeters, and detaining civilians—functions typically reserved for civilian law enforcement agencies. He stated that the deployment "fall[s] far short of 'rebellion,'" referencing the conditions under which the President can federalize the National Guard.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States, aiming to preserve the separation between military and civilian authorities. Exceptions to this act include situations where Congress expressly authorizes such use or under the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to deploy troops domestically under specific circumstances. In this case, Judge Breyer determined that the deployment did not meet these exceptions and thus violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

Governor Newsom, a Democrat, has been a vocal critic of the federal deployment. He argued that the use of military forces in this context was unnecessary and infringed upon state sovereignty. Following the ruling, Newsom emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional principles and protecting civil liberties.

The Trump administration maintained that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property amid escalating protests. They argued that the actions were within the President's authority to ensure law and order. As of now, the administration has not publicly commented on Judge Breyer's ruling.

Internal military documents revealed serious concerns among U.S. Army leaders over the deployment of National Guard and Marine troops to Los Angeles during the protests. The documents warned of the "extremely high" risk to civilians, troops, and the military’s reputation if federal forces supported law enforcement efforts. Planning records described potential for protests, miscommunication, fratricide, and unintended civilian harm, including to children. Military commanders questioned the sufficiency of troops’ training and emphasized the significant social, political, and operational consequences of any mistakes.

This ruling has significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly concerning the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement. It underscores the legal limitations on federal authority to deploy troops within states without explicit consent or clear legal justification. The decision may also influence public perception of federal interventions in state affairs and could impact future policy decisions regarding the use of military forces in domestic contexts.

Historically, the deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles without the state's request is a rare occurrence. Such actions have typically been taken under the Insurrection Act or with the consent of state authorities. This case marks a significant departure from precedent and raises questions about the appropriate use of military forces in managing civil unrest.

Judge Breyer's ruling serves as a significant check on federal authority, reinforcing the legal boundaries established to prevent military involvement in civilian law enforcement. As the nation grapples with ongoing debates over immigration policy and civil rights, this decision may have lasting implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments.

Tags: #trump, #nationalguard, #immigration, #california, #law