On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump administration’s deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles during June’s anti-ICE protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement.
The decision followed a three-day bench trial and came in response to a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who challenged the federalization of state troops without his consent.
Breyer, a Clinton appointee, emphasized that while protests in Los Angeles involved some violence, they did not constitute a rebellion, and local law enforcement was capable of managing the situation.
“In short, defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer wrote, noting that the deployment involved soldiers setting up perimeters, controlling crowds, and establishing a military presence. The ruling, which applies only to California, is stayed until September 12, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal.
Balancing State and Federal Authority
The deployment of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles was initiated by President Trump in June to address protests sparked by ICE raids, which resulted in over 100 arrests.
California officials, including Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, argued that the federal government overstepped its authority, sidestepping state coordination and violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
Breyer’s ruling highlighted evidence that the administration “coached” federal agencies to frame requests for military support as protection rather than law enforcement, a distinction he found insufficient to justify the troops’ actions.
Conversely, the Trump administration maintained that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property, asserting that such actions fall within presidential authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
An earlier temporary restraining order by Breyer was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed federal control of the troops to continue, signaling potential challenges to Breyer’s latest ruling.
Implications for Future Deployments
Breyer’s decision, while limited to California, raises questions about the scope of presidential power to deploy military forces domestically, particularly as Trump has indicated plans to send National Guard troops to cities like Chicago, New York, and Baltimore.
The judge expressed concern that such actions could lead to “a national police force with the President as its chief,” a sentiment echoed by Newsom, who stated on X, “DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN. The courts agree — his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL.”
The Trump administration, represented by figures like Acting Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, countered that the troops were deployed to protect federal assets, not to enforce laws directly, and White House spokesperson Anna Kelly called Breyer a “rogue judge.”
Legal experts, such as Los Angeles lawyer Neama Rahmani, suggest the case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court due to its constitutional significance, with the 9th Circuit likely to review and potentially stay Breyer’s ruling.
As the legal battle continues, the remaining 300 National Guard troops in Los Angeles are restricted from engaging in law enforcement activities like arrests or crowd control.
