A federal court ruling has deemed President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles as illegal, a significant decision made by Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco District Court on Thursday evening.
The judge ordered that control of the California National Guard be returned to Gov. Gavin Newsom, with the enforcement of the order set to take effect at noon the following day.
Despite the ruling, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that he would not commit to following the judicial order, as the federal government has initiated an appeal against the decision.
This legal battle began when Newsom filed a lawsuit after Trump deployed up to 4,000 National Guard troops on June 7, citing the need to quell protests against immigration raids.
The governor’s legal request sought a temporary restraining order that would restrict the National Guard’s activities to merely guarding federal buildings and prevent them from accompanying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during workplace raids.
A deputy attorney general from California indicated that in the next 24 hours, 140 Marines would replace the National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles.
Breyer emphasized the urgent significance of the matter, stating that the federal government should not be allowed to overstep its boundaries and create emergency scenarios that justify federal intervention.
The judge questioned whether Trump’s actions adhered to the legal prerequisites set forth under U.S. Code 12406, which allows presidential deployment of troops under specific conditions, including threat of foreign invasion or rebellion.
Federal attorney Brett Shumate argued that determining the presence of such threats is a political question reserved for the president, not the judiciary.
Breyer countered this argument, asserting that the protests in Los Angeles did not amount to rebellion, as most demonstrators acted peacefully.
“You’re telling me that the president acted on evidence,” Breyer posed to Shumate in court. When questioning whether the president needed to have evidence to make his decision, Shumate acknowledged that he did not.
According to the statute, if the conditions warranting deployment are met, the president’s command must be executed through the state governors.
California’s legal representatives contended that this statute necessitates approval from Newsom before Trump could issue such orders, while federal legal counsel argued that merely sending a copy of the order to Newsom was adequate.
They characterized the federal government’s interpretation of executive power as “breathtaking in scope.”
Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Green argued that Trump is attempting to deploy the National Guard whenever he perceives disobedience, a stance that he believes undermines the constitutional role of the president as commander in chief, which is granted by Congress.
Breyer drew a distinction between constitutional governance and monarchical rule, asserting the importance of adhering to the law as established by both the Constitution and state regulations.
At one point, the judge notably brandished a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution in court, indicating the weight of legal interpretation in his decision-making process.
As he explored the implications of presidential power, Breyer reflected on the historical context of the nation’s founding, underscoring the necessity of delineating the boundaries of authority within the framework of the law.
image source from：https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/s-f-district-court-judge-questions-legality-of-trump-troop-deployment/
