Posse Comitatus Central in California Guard Lawsuit \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal court revisited California’s case against Trump’s federalized National Guard in L.A. Judge Breyer asked for briefs on whether Posse Comitatus rules are violated. The appellate court allowed the federal troop deployment to continue for now.
Quick Looks
- The case returned Friday to a San Francisco federal courtroom after an appellate panel delayed enforcement of the lower-court ruling.
- Judge Charles Breyer postponed new decisions, requesting briefs by Monday on the Posse Comitatus Act’s applicability.
- The appeal follows the 9th Circuit’s move allowing Trump to retain control of California’s National Guard.
- California governor Gavin Newsom sued, arguing that federal troops are already violating the law by assisting immigration enforcement.
- Federal troops detained a civilian at a federal building—marking the first such civilian arrest in L.A. since 1965.
- Breyer previously ruled the use of National Guard violated law, since L.A. protests did not qualify as a “rebellion.”
- Trump’s defense cited his authority under Title 10 and evidence of violent unrest justifying the deployment.
- The suit continues even as public demonstrations recede and a curfew is lifted in downtown Los Angeles.
Deep Look
The escalating legal dispute between California and President Donald Trump over the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles now stands as one of the most consequential state-vs-federal clashes in decades—pitting constitutional boundaries, public safety, and civil liberties against the backdrop of intensifying national unrest.
At the heart of the conflict is whether Trump overstepped his presidential authority by invoking Title 10 to federalize California’s National Guard without the governor’s consent. Trump acted in response to protests triggered by aggressive immigration raids, citing violent episodes and damage to federal property as justification for deploying military resources in a law enforcement capacity. This decision marked the first time since 1965 that a U.S. president deployed a state National Guard to a major city without the governor’s agreement.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who sued the administration, alleges that such federalization—particularly with National Guard troops accompanying immigration agents and Marines detaining civilians—violates the Posse Comitatus Act. That act, passed in 1878, is one of the foundational laws separating military and civilian authority. It prohibits federal military personnel from engaging in direct law enforcement within U.S. borders unless explicitly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a seasoned jurist with a reputation for constitutional rigor, initially ruled that President Trump’s use of Title 10 in this context exceeded the legal thresholds laid out in federal law. Breyer argued that the demonstrations in Los Angeles—though at times unruly—did not constitute a “rebellion” or an emergency that would warrant federal intervention, a key legal criterion under Title 10.
However, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Breyer’s temporary restraining order, siding with the administration in allowing the troops to remain under federal control while litigation continues. The appellate court noted that while Trump’s powers are not unlimited, he had cited enough specific incidents of violence to justify emergency federal authority—at least temporarily.
The court’s move sent the case back to Judge Breyer, who convened a brief hearing last Friday in San Francisco. Rather than issuing a new order, he asked both sides to submit briefs by Monday focused specifically on whether the Posse Comitatus Act is being violated in Los Angeles through troop activities. The question now is not just whether Trump had the right to deploy the Guard, but whether those troops have crossed a constitutional red line by performing functions reserved for civilian law enforcement.
Breyer’s ruling—and any eventual appellate judgment—could reshape how presidents use the military within the U.S., especially in politically sensitive or ambiguous protest environments. While the federal government contends that accompanying immigration officers and protecting federal facilities is within bounds, California argues the reality on the ground is more invasive. One Marine reportedly detained a civilian outside a federal building, which state officials claim is the first such incident in L.A. since troops were deployed during the Civil Rights era.
Meanwhile, political fallout continues. President Trump has celebrated the appellate decision as a “BIG WIN” on social media, signaling readiness to replicate the strategy in other Democratic-led states should protests reemerge. His supporters argue that the deployment is necessary to ensure law and order amid ongoing threats to federal authority.
Governor Newsom, however, views the move as a federal overreach with dangerous implications. “If Trump can federalize the Guard here with no rebellion, no consent, and no accountability, what’s to stop it from happening in New York, Chicago, or Portland?” Newsom said during a press conference. He warned that this deployment, if upheld, could serve as precedent for a future where military force is routinely used in civilian contexts to quell dissent.
As legal arguments unfold, public conditions in Los Angeles appear to be easing. The downtown curfew was lifted, and federal agents withdrew from Dodger Stadium after public backlash. Still, the legal fight continues with Vice President J.D. Vance, himself a former Marine, visiting troops stationed in the city—a clear show of federal support for the deployment.
What’s at stake extends beyond California. If the courts side with Trump, future presidents could invoke vague threats of “domestic unrest” to override state authority and place U.S. troops on city streets—even in the absence of a rebellion. Conversely, a ruling in California’s favor could sharply restrict the executive branch’s ability to deploy military resources in any civilian scenario without state approval.
As legal briefs are submitted and judicial opinions loom, the battle over the National Guard in Los Angeles is poised to shape the modern understanding of military power, states’ rights, and the resilience of America’s post-Civil War safeguards.
Posse Comitatus Central Posse Comitatus Central
You must Register or Login to post a comment.