A US District Judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump unlawfully deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles during a time of heightened tensions over immigration enforcement and protests. This ruling by Judge Charles Breyer comes on the heels of California’s lawsuit against Trump’s administration. The state claimed that federal law prohibited the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement.
In early June, Trump federalized members of the California National Guard and dispatched roughly 4,000 soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. This move came during protests ignited by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city. The deployment continued, despite strong objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom and these city leaders. Their concerns focused broadly on federal overreach and the risk of the federal government militarizing domestic law enforcement.
Ruling Highlights Coordination with Local Officials
Judge Breyer’s decision criticized Trump’s administration for “wilfully and meaningfully coordinating with state and local officials,” indicating that the deployment was part of a broader strategy to enforce federal laws through military presence.
“These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority,” – Judge Breyer.
The judge’s findings paint a shocking picture of an administration willing to weaponize military resources for domestic policing. This decision has since come under fire. The decision raises major issues with the deployment of National Guard troops to civilian law enforcement scenarios. That’s particularly acute when it comes to protests and as we’ve covered, immigration enforcement.
Legal Implications and Arguments
And a few weeks later, with remarkable bravado, Trump’s administration defended that deployment. They invoked a provision of the U.S. code that gives the president authority to deploy National Guard units in response to an “insurrection,” “invasion,” or other crises that threaten execution of federal law. Attorneys for Trump’s administration claimed the Posse Comitatus Act wasn’t relevant here. They argued that the troops were only there to protect federal officers and not engaged in direct law enforcement activities.
Despite these arguments, Judge Breyer ruled against Trump, emphasizing that the deployment was not justified under the legal framework he cited. The judge’s ruling has significant implications for the deployment of military assets within US borders. It particularly affects the way these assets can and do engage with civilian governance.
Political Reactions and Broader Context
In the wake of the ruling, Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his approval on social media, stating, “DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN. The courts agree — his militarisation of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL.” Newsom’s comments reflect broader concerns among state leaders regarding Trump’s approach to governance and law enforcement during his presidency.
Over the course of Trump’s presidency, the ongoing crisis in Los Angeles was a microcosm of a growing national pattern. He constantly tested the boundaries of military engagement on the domestic landscape. This ranged from building up militarized zones along the US-Mexico border between migrant communities to sending federal troops to quell peaceful civil unrest.
Judge Breyer’s ruling lets thousands of troops remain on duty in San Francisco. The court ultimately did not order their recusal. Looking ahead, aside from its specific circumstances, this ruling could establish key precedents on federal authority and military involvement in domestic affairs.
