Federal Court Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment Order \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment. The ruling grants California control over its Guard forces amid protests against immigration raids. The federal government has already filed an appeal.
Quick Looks
- Judge Charles Breyer ruled Trump’s Guard order violated constitutional limits.
- A temporary restraining order returns control of the Guard to California Friday at noon.
- California sued, arguing Trump’s deployment bypassed the governor and escalated unrest.
- The White House has not responded; DOJ immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Judge cited overreach of presidential powers under Title 10 authority.
- Over 500 Guard troops had already been trained to support immigration agents.
- Photos show troops providing security at raid sites across Los Angeles.
- The federal government argued the order was not subject to judicial review.
- Breyer rejected that claim, citing constitutional limits on executive power.
- Immigration-related protests have intensified and spread nationally since the deployment.
Deep Look
In a major legal setback for the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order Thursday halting the deployment of National Guard troops in California. The order, effective at noon Friday, requires President Donald Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The judge ruled that the deployment was not only unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment but also exceeded the president’s authority under federal statute.
This judicial rebuke comes amid mounting national unrest over Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown, which has triggered widespread protests and drawn bipartisan scrutiny. The National Guard deployment to Los Angeles—consisting of nearly 4,000 troops—was intended to support federal immigration raids in the city. However, the legality of using state military forces in this manner, without gubernatorial consent, quickly became the subject of a legal battle.
California Governor Gavin Newsom initially filed a lawsuit opposing the deployment, later requesting emergency relief to prevent the Guard from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. In court, California’s legal team argued that the Guard’s role had expanded beyond its originally stated purpose—protecting federal buildings—to now include aiding in active immigration raids, which they said only heightened civil tensions.
Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who oversees the deployment under Task Force 51, confirmed earlier this week that roughly 500 Guard members had been trained specifically to accompany federal agents during these operations. Photos circulated by federal agencies showed National Guard troops providing tactical support at multiple immigration enforcement sites in the Los Angeles area.
Trump justified the deployment using Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the federalization of the National Guard in certain emergency situations. However, Judge Breyer concluded that Trump failed to properly invoke that authority. “Typically, the president must act through the governor,” he noted, citing longstanding precedent. “This deployment did not meet that requirement.”
The Department of Justice, in its defense, maintained that the president’s order was lawful and beyond judicial review. Brett Shumate, representing the federal government, argued, “Courts didn’t interfere when Eisenhower deployed troops for desegregation or Nixon used the military to deliver mail. They shouldn’t interfere now.”
But Judge Breyer disagreed, invoking the foundational limits of presidential power. “We’re talking about the president exercising authority that is not unchecked,” he said, holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution in court. “That’s the difference between a constitutional democracy and King George.”
The ruling, while temporary, is a strong rebuke of the Trump administration’s legal reasoning and its approach to executive power. The federal government immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it remains unclear if a stay will be granted before the noon deadline on Friday.
On the ground, the decision leaves uncertainty. Immigration agents have been conducting high-profile raids across California, including at Home Depot parking lots and various small businesses. These operations have ignited fear among immigrant communities, with advocacy groups reporting increases in hotline calls and emergency alerts.
The presence of the National Guard—alongside militarized immigration enforcement—has drawn sharp criticism from local leaders. Dozens of Los Angeles-area mayors released a joint statement Wednesday demanding an end to the raids and the immediate withdrawal of troops. “This does nothing but inflame tensions and put our communities at risk,” the statement read.
Although Marines have yet to be visibly deployed in Los Angeles, their presence has been authorized, further stoking fears that federal operations could intensify. For now, the Guard’s role has been mostly limited to logistical support, but that could change depending on the outcome of the appeal.
Politically, the decision puts the administration on the defensive. Trump had framed Los Angeles as a city in crisis and claimed the Guard was essential to restoring order. But Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have pushed back, calling the president’s characterization of their city “wildly inaccurate” and warning that military intervention would only escalate unrest.
As protests continue to spread across other cities—including Boston, Chicago, and Seattle—Thursday’s court ruling may serve as a legal benchmark for other states seeking to assert authority over their own National Guard units in the face of federal mandates.
Federal Court Blocks Federal Court Blocks
You must Register or Login to post a comment.