Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Use in California/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge ruled President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The ruling follows California’s lawsuit accusing Trump of using the military for domestic law enforcement. The decision is on hold until Sept. 12, with an appeal expected.
Judge Blocks Trump’s Guard Deployment Quick Looks
- Judge Charles Breyer: Trump violated Posse Comitatus Act
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit challenged the deployment
- 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines sent to Los Angeles
- Military used for crowd control, traffic blocks, and detentions
- Ruling placed on hold until September 12
- Administration argues constitutional exception for protecting federal personnel
- Case may escalate to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Democrats condemned Trump’s use of troops as political repression
- Legal experts warn ruling sets precedent on presidential authority
- Similar deployment in Washington, D.C. remains unaffected
Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Use in California
Deep Look
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during this summer’s immigration enforcement protests was illegal, saying the administration crossed a clear legal boundary by using the military for domestic law enforcement.
Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court in California issued the ruling Tuesday, declaring that Trump’s use of thousands of troops to assist federal immigration agents violated the Posse Comitatus Act — a law designed to prevent military involvement in civilian policing.
California’s Lawsuit and Court Findings
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued that the deployment represented an unprecedented expansion of presidential authority. At trial, lawyers from California’s attorney general’s office presented evidence showing that soldiers went beyond protection duties — setting up perimeters, blocking traffic, and even detaining civilians.
“In short, the defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” Judge Breyer wrote, adding that the military had effectively acted as police forces, something explicitly restricted by federal law.
The ruling does not immediately force the withdrawal of remaining troops, but Breyer placed his order on hold until Sept. 12, giving the administration time to appeal.
Trump’s Legal Defense
Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that the Constitution allows presidents to use troops to protect federal personnel and property, making the deployment an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. They claimed soldiers were only assisting immigration agents when threats emerged.
The administration argued that Guard forces were not performing routine law enforcement tasks but merely ensuring the safety of federal officers during volatile demonstrations.
Deployment That Sparked National Debate
In June, Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid protests against large-scale immigration raids. The move immediately inflamed tensions in California, with critics accusing Trump of using military force to suppress political dissent rather than safeguard public order.
At trial, evidence showed that troops were still active in Los Angeles months later, supporting raids on marijuana farms and maintaining a visible presence at public parks where immigration agents expected protests.
Democrats and civil liberties advocates said the deployment marked a dangerous precedent.
California’s legal team warned that siding with Trump could “usher in a vast and unprecedented shift in the role of the military in our society.”
Impact Beyond California
The ruling is unlikely to affect Trump’s use of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., where presidential authority is broader. In recent months, Trump ordered troops to patrol the nation’s capital, citing rising crime rates.
Still, the Los Angeles case highlights the legal gray areas surrounding military involvement in domestic affairs — and could set the stage for a prolonged constitutional battle if the administration appeals.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.