In downtown Los Angeles, the Federal Building was stationed by the California National Guard on June 10, 2025. There’s been a legal ruling stating that the administration of President Donald Trump went against federal law when they transferred National Guard troops to Southern California amidst immigration crackdowns and corresponding demonstrations. Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, based in San Francisco, did not demand the pullout of the remaining troops. His ruling is set to come into effect by the end of the week.
This legal order materialized after the state of California filed a lawsuit, alleging that the troops deployed to Los Angeles in the summer were acting in contravention of a law that restricts military involvement in domestic affairs. Lawyers representing the Republican administration under President Trump maintain that the Posse Comitatus Act is non-applicable in this case. They argue that the troops served to guard federal officers rather than execute laws, thereby remaining outside the purview of the Act.
Legal representatives for the administration claim the soldiers were enlisted based on a legal provision that grants the president the right to direct their deployment. This ruling by Judge Breyer unfolds concurrently with talks about National Guard deployments in cities governed by Democrats, including Chicago, Baltimore, and New York, by President Trump.
These events occur in the wake of Trump’s unprecedented law enforcement takeover in Washington. Here, he can exercise direct legal control. By exercising a law that allows the president to draft the guard to federal service at times of invasion or rebellion or when he perceives the execution of United States laws to be under threat, President Trump federalized members of the California National Guard.
Despite staunch objections from Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders, Trump sent these federalized troops to Los Angeles, the second-largest U.S. city. Over time, Trump’s actions have greatly expanded the customary military activity within domestic U.S. territories, such as the establishment of militarized zones along the U.S.- Mexico border.
Both the White House and the Defense Department refrained from offering immediate comments to the flood of inquiries orienting their attention towards this matter. The final court ruling by Breyer rendered a harsh critique of Trump’s administration, accusing them of a deliberate and ‘willful’ violation of law.
According to Breyer, the Trump administration misused troops for assignments that were explicitly declared as prohibited in their training guidelines, neglected coordination with state and local authorities, and prepared federal law enforcement agencies in scripting language facilitating requests for aid.
These measures, Breyer articulated, are solid proof that the defendants knew the orders they issued were directing troops to enforce domestic law beyond their typical jurisdiction. As per evidence presented during the trial, the defendants habitually deployed armed soldiers with concealed identities due to protective armor, and used military vehicles for establishing protective barriers and traffic barricades.
These troops were also involved in managing crowd control and maintaining a palpable military presence in Los Angeles and surrounding locations. Meanwhile, Breyer also pointed out the potential future plans of Trump’s administration to mobilize National Guard troops to other U.S. cities.
In Los Angeles, National Guard members joined an operation in downtown’s MacArthur Park, apparently to display a show of strength towards unauthorized immigrants and individuals contesting Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration. They also assisted in federal immigration raids at two state-approved marijuana nurseries in Ventura County, as confirmed by Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman.
Sherman, who was initially responsible for commanding the troops stationed in Los Angeles, voiced concerns on day two of the trial that the deployment could be infringing on the Posse Comitatus Act. He went on to share that the soldiers had been trained on this law and were provided materials outlining its restrictions, such as the prohibition against security patrolling and traffic, crowd, and riot controls.
Sherman elaborated that while the Posse Comitatus Act bans troops from performing these mentioned activities, he had received guidance from his seniors suggesting a ‘constitutional exception’. This exception supposedly allows these activities when the troops are tasked with safeguarding federal property or personnel.
The post California Sues over Troops Deployment in Domestic Affairs appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
