A federal judge is set to hear arguments on Thursday regarding the deployment of state National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amidst escalating protests related to the Trump administration’s federal immigration enforcement efforts.
On Tuesday, California filed a request for a temporary restraining order to halt these deployments, arguing that the military presence was intended to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers during raids in the city and needed to be stopped immediately.
In response, the Trump administration referred to California’s request as “legally meritless,” claiming it seeks “extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous” relief that should be denied.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an order on Tuesday afternoon mandating a response from the Trump administration by 11 a.m. Wednesday, and allowed California until 9 a.m. Thursday to reply before scheduling a hearing for 1:30 p.m. on Thursday.
The state’s legal action was initiated through the federal lawsuit brought by California and Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday, which alleges that President Trump has overstepped his authority by deploying military forces into an American city without the approval or request of state officials.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is managing the litigation on behalf of both Newsom and the state, emphasized the urgency of the restraining order, stating it was essential to immediately cease the deployments.
Local officials have maintained that the military presence is unnecessary and is inflaming tensions within communities already affected by aggressive federal immigration detentions and arrests.
Bonta described President Trump’s actions as both “unnecessary and counterproductive,” stating the military presentation only serves to escalate tensions rather than enhance public safety. He remarked on the manipulative use of military personnel, labeling their deployment as disrespectful and a misuse of valuable resources.
Newsom reiterated Bonta’s sentiments, asserting that the federal government has turned the military against American citizens.
He condemned the decision to deploy “trained warfighters” onto city streets as an unprecedented threat to democracy, accusing President Trump of acting like a tyrant.
In a speech at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, President Trump defended the deployment as necessary to safeguard federal law enforcement from protests he described as “a vicious and violent mob.”
He suggested that without the military presence, Los Angeles would be engulfed in chaos similar to previous violent events.
Trump characterized the protests as a full-blown assault on peace and public order, claiming an ongoing foreign invasion aimed at undermining national sovereignty.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, countered California’s allegations, stating that officials should be thanking Trump for “restoring law and order” in Los Angeles.
She criticized Governor Newsom for focusing on public optics rather than supporting law enforcement and holding accountable those committing crimes during the protests.
California’s initial request for a restraining order aimed for a swift approval by 1 p.m. Tuesday, stating that failure to grant such relief would result in “immediate and irreparable harm” to the state.
The filing warned that the Trump administration’s deployments of military forces for general law enforcement activities pose imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deplete vital resources, increase tensions, and exacerbate civil unrest.
The request pointed out the long-standing legal prohibition against using military forces, such as active duty armed personnel and federalized National Guard, for civilian law enforcement, a principle established by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Despite assurances from Trump administration officials that the Marines were on a mission to protect federal buildings, the lawsuit emphasized that deploying them for domestic policing tasks is unlawful.
At the direction of Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized nearly 2,000 members of California’s National Guard on Saturday.
This decision followed President Trump’s claims that Los Angeles was descending into chaos and that federal agents were in jeopardy.
An additional 2,000 National Guard members were mobilized on the following Monday, alongside the Pentagon’s approval to deploy 700 U.S. Marines from the base in Twentynine Palms for a 60-day mission.
The deployments were budgeted to cost approximately $134 million, with Hegseth emphasizing the need to maintain a strong military presence to deter violent actions against law enforcement officials.
While local authorities have denounced acts of violence and property damage occurring alongside the protests, they have stressed that Trump administration officials have exaggerated the severity of the situation, asserting that there is no actual necessity for federal military presence in the city.
Prominent constitutional scholars and some congressional members have raised concerns about the legality of deploying military forces for domestic purposes without the consent of local and state officials, drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass questioned the operational role of Marines on the ground, and Police Chief Jim McDonnell indicated that the lack of coordination with local law enforcement from military forces could lead to significant logistical challenges.
Bonta reiterated on Monday that the limitation of federal power around such deployments is constitutionally mandated, calling the National Guard’s deployment to quelling protests “unlawful” and “unprecedented,” while labeling the utilization of Marines as “similarly unlawful.”
The state sought to block the Trump administration from ordering military or federalized National Guard to patrol the streets or engage in general law enforcement duties beyond federal property.
The protests have primarily been concentrated in downtown areas and select neighborhoods where immigration officials have executed raids, with local officials asserting such events are manageable without federal military involvement.
Though the protests have led to some violence, property damage, and significant media coverage, they have been comparatively smaller than similar demonstrations in the past, leading local officials to express confidence in their ability to maintain order.
In stark contrast, Trump and his administration have painted a dire picture of the situation in Los Angeles, drastically differing from the local officials’ assessments.
Hegseth argued that military forces are necessary to ensure the safety of federal agents during immigration operations, which he stated will continue despite the controversy.
Concerns about Trump’s military deployments have reached far beyond California, with U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff demanding clarification on the authority under which the deployment occurred, labeling the move a “reckless decision.”
Andrew Ginther, the U.S. Conference of Mayors President and Mayor of Columbus, Ohio, voiced strong opposition to using military forces in urban settings, reiterating that law enforcement should remain a local responsibility and showing solidarity with Mayor Bass’s efforts to maintain order.
Ginther emphasized respect for peaceful protests as a democratic right while denouncing violence and destruction.
With the court hearing approaching, the debate over the Trump administration’s use of military forces in Los Angeles highlights the tensions between state and federal authorities regarding civil rights, public safety, and the limits of executive power.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-10/california-asks-court-for-temporary-restraining-order-to-block-marine-deployment-in-l-a
