Table of Contents

• Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in California
  • Judge Rejects Administration’s Argument
  • Deployment Details and Newsom’s Opposition
  • Trump’s justification and Newsom’s Response
  • State’s argument Against Military Deployment
  • White House Defense

In a legal blow to the White House, a federal judge has ruled against President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge sided with California’s claim that the president overstepped his authority in activating the guard for immigration enforcement. The order mandates the return of National Guard control to California Governor Gavin Newsom by noon on Friday (Pacific Time).

While the ruling is subject to appeal, it marks a significant challenge to the governance’s efforts to utilize federal powers in addressing immigration issues and related public dissent. The immediate timeline for the potential removal of Guard units remains uncertain.

Judge Rejects Administration’s Argument

During a hearing on Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the administration’s argument that presidential decisions regarding the necessity of National Guard deployment are beyond judicial review.

“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King george.It’s not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it,” the judge stated,emphasizing the importance of checks and balances.

Deployment Details and Newsom’s Opposition

Beginning the previous Saturday, President Trump deployed 4,000 members of the California National Guard and several hundred U.S. Marines to Los Angeles,despite objections from Governor Newsom. While governors typically command National Guard units within their states, presidents possess the authority to federalize them.

Judge Breyer clarified that his ruling did not extend to the deployment of Marines, even though California’s legal representatives suggested they might replace the National Guard troops.

did You Know? The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes, but exceptions exist, particularly in cases of natural disaster or civil unrest deemed beyond the capacity of local authorities.

Trump’s justification and Newsom’s Response

In his deployment order, President Trump cited alleged attempts to obstruct immigration agents in Los Angeles, characterizing them as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

Governor Newsom condemned Trump’s actions as unlawful. “The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens,” Newsom stated when California initiated legal action to regain control of the Guard. “sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy.”

State’s argument Against Military Deployment

California officials argued that local law enforcement was adequately managing the protests, that any violence was isolated and short-lived, and that the military deployment actually heightened tensions, leading to increased unrest. they emphasized that no fatalities or serious injuries had been reported.

“At no point in the past three days has ther been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past,” the state asserted in its lawsuit.

White House Defense

The White House maintained in court that ongoing interference and “fighting” with immigration agents justified the president’s decision to deploy the military. Justice Department lawyers argued that the military’s role was not to perform law enforcement duties but to protect or accompany federal agents during their operations.