Importance Score: 75 / 100 🔴
Judge Blocks Trump’s Deployment of National Guard in California Amid Immigration Protest
A federal judge on Thursday declared that the then President Donald Trump had unlawfully mobilized the California National Guard to quell demonstrations against immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, instructing that command of the force be restored to California Governor Gavin Newsom. This legal challenge highlights issues of states’ rights and federal overreach, making it a key legal and political point.
Initial Ruling and Appeal
The decree issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer represented a significant setback for the Trump administration. However, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily halted the order, pending their review of the case.
Regardless of the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision after its emergency hearing scheduled for June 17, the dispute is anticipated to escalate into a contentious legal and political battle, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
LONZERUI2024 New Mens Smart Watch with a 420Mah Large Battery, 1.96-Inch Ultra HD Screen, Wireless Calling, Flashlight Feature,, Suitable for Android And Ios Outdoor Use
Price: $0.62
Mens Gothic Hoodie - Fashion Hoodies with Retro Lace Up Design, Casual Graphic Print, Streetwear Style for Winter Fall, Great Gift Idea
Price: $1.79
[Anti-Slip Basketball Shoes] Anti-Slip Durable Mens High-Top Basketball Shoes | Fashion Training Sneakers for Sports and Casual Wear
🎉 Exclusive deal [Price: $9.19]
Basis for the Restraining Order
In granting a temporary restraining order against Trump, Judge Breyer determined that the former president had failed to demonstrate a “rebellion” in Los Angeles that warranted federalizing the National Guard. Furthermore, he noted the failure to adhere to necessary procedures for notifying the governor.
“His actions were unlawful – both exceeding the bounds of his legal authority and contravening the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He must therefore cede authority over the California National Guard back to the Governor,” Breyer stated.
California’s Lawsuit
The request for the injunction forms part of a lawsuit initiated by the State of California. This suit contested Trump’s decision to activate over 4,000 National Guard personnel and approximately 700 active-duty Marines from Twentynine Palms, California, despite Governor Newsom’s opposition.
Governor Newsom’s Response
“Our courtroom triumph today is a victory for all Americans,” Newsom asserted in a statement following the order. “The president’s effort to turn the military against its own people endangered our democracy and edged us precariously toward authoritarianism.”
Arguments in Federal Court
The decision was delivered hours after a hearing in federal district court in San Francisco, where the Justice Department contended that Trump possessed sole and unreviewable authority to determine whether a “rebellion” existed that required federal intervention.
Judge Breyer dismissed both arguments in his comprehensive 36-page ruling, effectively criticizing the Justice Department for suggesting that the prerequisites for assuming control of the Guard had been satisfied solely based on Trump’s determination.
“The president’s discretion in what to do next does not mean that the president can unilaterally and without judicial review declare that a vacancy exists in order to fill it. That is classic ipse dixit,” Breyer wrote, emphasizing that the conditions constituting a rebellion had not been met.
Procedural Concerns
Judge Breyer also expressed skepticism regarding the Justice Department’s claim that Trump had followed proper procedure by issuing orders “through” the governor, merely by directly notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, to whom Newsom had delegated authority.
“Regardless of whether Defendants gave Governor Newsom an opportunity to consult with them or consent to the federalization of California’s National Guard, they did not issue their orders through him,” Breyer clarified.
Marines’ Deployment
The temporary restraining order did not address the deployment of Marines, orchestrated by Trump and then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The Justice Department had informed the judge that the Marines were solely for safeguarding federal buildings and personnel.
- Use of military, Breyer noted, for protective roles, would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
- This act prohibits the deployment of troops in law enforcement activities on U.S. soil.
Trump’s Previous Statements
Trump had previously considered deploying troops against American citizens during periods of unrest. Some Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the summer of 2020 turned violent. Although he ultimately decided against it then, he later expressed regret to advisors for not acting more decisively.
During a campaign rally in 2023, Trump pledged to respond more forcefully if elected. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” he stated, referring to the president’s role in deciding whether to deploy the military. “The next time, I’m not waiting.”