A federal judge has denied California’s emergency request to block the deployment of additional federalized National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in the Los Angeles area.
This decision followed California’s prompt filing of an emergency motion aimed at halting President Donald Trump, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, from expanding the current military mission in the region.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has scheduled a hearing for Thursday in San Francisco federal court to further discuss California’s request for a restraining order.
The lawsuit, initiated by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, comes in response to President Trump’s escalation of military forces, involving the federalization of 4,000 National Guard soldiers and what state officials describe as the unlawful deployment of 700 Marines.
“This military presence is turning against American citizens,” stated Newsom, expressing his concerns regarding the implications of such actions on democracy.
He criticized Trump’s actions as tyrannical and reiterated the need for judicial intervention against these “unlawful actions.”
Alongside Newsom, Bonta accused the President of seeking to militarize responses against dissenting voices within the community.
“It’s not just immoral—it’s illegal and dangerous,” Bonta argued, insisting that local law enforcement, rather than military forces, should maintain order.
The federal government perceived the deployment as a necessary measure due to escalating protests in response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles, which had sparked public unrest.
Trump defended the military mobilization on his Truth Social platform, asserting that without it, Los Angeles would have faced dire consequences.
In the lawsuit, Newsom and Bonta argue that the federalization of the National Guard not only undermines the state’s ability to protect its citizens but also violates federal law stipulating that such actions require the governor’s consent.
Moreover, they contend that the President’s orders infringe upon Newsom’s role as the commander-in-chief of the state’s National Guard, thereby violating California’s sovereign rights.
The Pentagon, during a budget hearing, indicated that the military deployment could incur costs amounting to $134 million.
Critics contend that Trump’s military escalation is unnecessary, especially since local authorities had not requested such federal support.
Bonta described the federal actions as a dangerous overreach of authority, contradicting the framework of intergovernmental relations.
Historically, the deployment of National Guard troops has only required a President’s intervention under limited circumstances, with Bonta noting that this is reminiscent of the National Guard’s mobilization during the 1970 Postal Service strike by Nixon.
This situation marks an unprecedented act since President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama in 1965 during the civil rights movement without approval from the state governor.
The controversy intensified when Tom Homan, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggested on Sunday that state officials, including Newsom, could face arrest for obstructing federal enforcement.
Although those comments were later retracted by the agency, Trump expressed his support for Homan’s decree during a press briefing, igniting further tensions.
In retort, Newsom exhibited defiance, asserting his commitment to his constituents while dismissing the threats from federal officials as mere posturing.
“Arrest me, let’s get this over with,” he said during an appearance on MSNBC, emphasizing his dedication to community safety against the backdrop of state-federal conflicts.
As the hearing approaches, the situation remains fluid, with state officials hopeful that the court will recognize the overreach occurring at the federal level.
This case underscores the ongoing tensions between state authorities and the federal government, particularly concerning issues of law enforcement and civil rights amid rising discontent among the populace.
The implications of this deployment and its subsequent legal challenges will likely play a pivotal role in shaping the relationship between state rights and federal authority in the coming months.
image source from：https://www.audacy.com/kroq/news/judge-rejects-request-to-block-additional-troops-to-l-a
