Judge rules Trump deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles violated federal law

Breyer prohibited the use of troops deployed in California and any other military troops in the state to “execute the laws,” but he paused his ruling until Sept. 13, likely to allow the Trump administration to appeal it.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) applauded the ruling. 

“Today, the court sided with democracy and the Constitution,” Newsom said in a statement. “No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people.” 

He added: “Trump’s attempt to use federal troops as his personal police force is illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

The ruling comes more than two months into a controversial deployment triggered by anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in June. Breyer ordered that the remaining troops should either be released or limited to guarding federal buildings.

Breyer ruled that Trump’s actions violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that sharply limits the use of federal troops to enforce civilian laws.

“There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence,” Breyer wrote. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”

The ruling is a win for Newsom and raises legal questions about presidential authority. However, the Trump administration is expected to appeal Tuesday’s decision and could receive a more favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In a June 7 executive order, Trump wrote that “violent protests” in LA had grown into “a form of rebellion” and that the military was needed to protect federal agents and property. Newsom, along with city officials, disputed the president’s reading of the situation, calling it a power grab and saying that sending in masked and armed immigration agents to a city where immigrants make up about a third of the population would lead to more chaos and violence. They also noted that local police had the protests, which were confined to only a few blocks in the downtown area, under control. 

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using the military for civil law enforcement unless there is an insurrection. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act but instead cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which lays out the role of armed force that he claimed allowed him to federalize National Guard units to execute federal law. He also claimed that troops were needed in California to protect federal agents doing their jobs because protesters were trying to stop and harass them. Newsom challenged Trump’s deployment, and in June, Breyer temporarily blocked the efforts. 

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, two of whom were appointed by Trump, did not agree and claimed the protests warranted an argument for sending in troops, even though Newsom and other California officials vehemently said they did not want or need them. The decision allowed the troops to remain in California and under Trump’s control, pending a decision on another request by the state to restrict how the remaining troops would be used. 

NEWSOM COMPARES CALIFORNIA’S HOMICIDE RATE TO RED STATES. DOES HE HAVE A POINT?

The protests in Los Angeles had ended by mid-June, but instead of releasing them, the Trump administration kept the troops on duty, sending them out with federal agents executing immigration raids and search warrants. Newsom claimed the troops were not allowed to conduct law enforcement. During a three-day hearing last month, California lawyers showed the judge numerous pictures of armed National Guard troops engaging in what looked like police work. In two cases, members even detained people. 

The Justice Department argued that Trump, even in a case where there is no insurrection, has the power to deploy the military to protect federal property and employees. DOJ lawyers also defended how the troops were used, arguing that no law was violated.