In a significant legal rebuke to former President Donald Trump, a federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally by deploying California’s National Guard to Los Angeles without the approval of the state’s governor. The decision temporarily halts the federal control of the troops and reinforces the constitutional limits on presidential authority.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declared that Trump’s unilateral deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines—meant to suppress protests over immigration policies—violated federal law. California Governor Gavin Newsom had vocally opposed the move, asserting that local officials were capable of handling the unrest without federal military involvement.
“The President did not follow the law,” Judge Breyer wrote in his decision. “His actions were illegal. He must return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California.”
However, the judge paused the implementation of his order until Friday afternoon to allow the Trump administration time to appeal—an option it exercised immediately.
Newsom, reacting to the ruling on social media, stated, “The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.”
The legal battle stems from Trump’s claim that violent unrest in Los Angeles warranted federal intervention. His administration argued that troops were needed to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducting raids and to restore order. Yet, the state maintained in its lawsuit that while the protests had led to more than 300 arrests and some disruptions, they did not meet the threshold of a “rebellion” or “insurrection” required under the law used to justify the deployment.
In a packed courtroom, the Justice Department defended Trump’s authority. “There is one commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces,” said government attorney Brett Shumate. But Judge Breyer swiftly corrected him: “The president isn’t the commander-in-chief of the National Guard,” reminding the court that the Guard falls under state control unless specific constitutional conditions are met.
Breyer, brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, underscored the limits of presidential power by repeatedly referencing the U.S. Constitution. At one point, he held up a copy of the document and stated, “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”
This is the first time in over 50 years that a president has attempted to deploy the National Guard without a governor’s consent, a move not seen since the civil rights era. Typically, governors request federal assistance after activating their own troops during natural disasters or emergencies.
California’s lawsuit argues that Trump’s justification for the deployment lacked legal merit. “At no point has there been a rebellion or insurrection,” it states. “These protests have not approached the scale of unrest seen in other moments in Los Angeles’ history.”
The judge’s ruling now places a crucial constitutional check on executive power at a moment of heightened national debate over the use of military force in domestic affairs. The appeals process will determine whether the federal government must relinquish control of the troops back to California’s elected leadership—or whether Trump’s controversial action will stand as precedent.
