SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday granted California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s seizure of the California National Guard and deployment of troops in Los Angeles, calling the federal action illegal and unconstitutional.
The ruling temporarily returned control of the Guard to the state and delivered a legal and symbolic blow to the Trump administration’s latest domestic military escalation.
But hours later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a stay, allowing the Trump administration to maintain control of the California National Guard for now.
The decision temporarily blocks the lower court’s order requiring the federal government to return control of the troops to California, marking the next step in a high-stakes legal battle over executive authority and state sovereignty.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer had found that Trump’s order to federalize 2,000 California National Guard members—without the governor’s consent—violated Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus (Latin for the power of the county) Act, which bars the use of the military in domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization.
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not,” Breyer wrote in the 36-page order. “His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
The ruling came amid widespread public unrest and federal immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles. On June 6, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executed coordinated raids at various locations across the city, including the Garment District, targeting undocumented immigrants. More than 70 people were detained. The raids, which local officials say were carried out without notice or coordination with local law enforcement, triggered mass protests across downtown Los Angeles and surrounding neighborhoods.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and County Supervisor Janice Hahn were among several leaders who criticized the federal operations, warning that the raids created chaos and fear. Demonstrations quickly escalated, with thousands taking to the streets. While most remained peaceful, isolated incidents of vandalism and clashes with law enforcement were reported, including fireworks thrown at officers, property damage and minor injuries. Law enforcement, however, maintained control, and both LAPD and the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department reported no need for federal reinforcements.
Despite this, Trump issued a memorandum on June 7 ordering the National Guard into federal service under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The memo, which did not name California specifically, claimed protests were interfering with the execution of federal law and constituted “a form of rebellion.” The order, which also authorized the Department of Defense to deploy active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, bypassed the governor and was implemented immediately.
Judge Breyer rejected the administration’s legal justification for the federalization, writing that the facts did not meet the statutory conditions for such a move.
“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. “While some individuals used the protests as an excuse for violence and destruction, Defendants have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”
The court found that protesters were clearly motivated by opposition to the ICE raids and not by any desire to overthrow the federal government.
Breyer also emphasized that federal law requires National Guard deployments under Title 10 to occur with the consent of the governor, a step the administration skipped entirely.
“The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles—not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,” Newsom said in a public statement following the deployment.
In its legal filings, the state argued that the deployment had inflamed tensions and endangered public safety. According to court declarations, the presence of military personnel escalated unrest rather than containing it. On June 8, the day troops arrived, the number of protesters surged to over 3,500, and additional confrontations occurred outside the Metropolitan Detention Center. Officials noted that the National Guard units were neither properly trained nor authorized to conduct civilian law enforcement activities, which are explicitly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-filed the lawsuit, called the decision a victory for democracy.
“We will not stand idly by as the President attempts to intimidate and silence those who disagree with him,” Bonta said. “This order reaffirms that in this country, we do not use the military to police peaceful dissent.”
The lawsuit has drawn national attention. Twenty-one state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of California, warning that Trump’s actions set a “chilling precedent” that threatens state sovereignty and democratic norms. The brief stated that the President’s actions lacked legal justification and “are wholly inconsistent with our Nation’s founding principle that freedom depends on the subordination of the military to civilian authority.”
Retired military leaders, including former secretaries of the Army and Navy and retired four-star generals and admirals, also weighed in. In a separate filing, they warned that the deployment of federal troops in politically charged circumstances without clear legal authorization jeopardizes both the legitimacy of the military and the public’s trust. “The active-duty military and National Guard serve a critical role in U.S. national security,” the brief stated. “Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to exacting legal requirements threaten their core national security and disaster relief missions, put the military at risk of politicization, and pose serious risks to both servicemembers and civilians.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., welcomed the court’s decision and condemned the President’s attempt to override state authority. “President Trump tried to commandeer the California National Guard to manufacture a crisis and abuse his power,” Padilla said. “He put the safety of our Guard and our local law enforcement at risk to create a spectacle and intimidate peaceful protesters. Tonight’s ruling is a victory for the people of California and for the rule of law.”
The court’s decision also scrutinized the President’s invocation of the phrase “danger of a rebellion,” noting that this language was not part of the original order and that no factual record supports such a claim. “Defendants have not established a factual basis from which this Court can conclude that there is a danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States,” Breyer wrote.
Although the ruling applies only to California for now, its implications could be national. The June 7 memo suggested a broader assertion of power, referring to deployments “at locations where protests … are likely to occur,” raising the possibility of similar actions in other states. Legal observers say the ruling reasserts longstanding constitutional limits on federal power and upholds the principle of civilian control over the military.
The Department of Justice has not yet said whether it will appeal the District Court ruling, but Trump administration officials indicated they are reviewing their legal options. In the meantime, questions remain about the status of more than 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines stationed in the Los Angeles area. The legal status of those deployments will remain in flux until further rulings are issued.
Like I stated yesterday, a Bill Clinton appointed judge.
This is not really a surprise.
So we should do away with federal courts because everyone is either going to be nominated by a Democrat or Republican and therefore by extension of your implicit logic, it’s all tainted.
The way the courts are being used now by democrats they are certainly being tainted.
But I’m going to remember you said this the next time you complain about SCOTUS of other federal rulings.
You can complain about rulings, that’s not the issue.
So are you claiming that you’ve never complained about who appointed a federal judge or nominated a member of SCOTUS?
No.
Thank you for your honesty.
I wasn’t claiming that, I was claiming that by reduction, your argument could not hold.
Well that didn’t last long.
“Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-lets-trump-keep-024021943.html