A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s use of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in California this past June was illegal.
The deployment, ostensibly to protect federal property and law enforcement officers amid anti-immigration protests in the city, occurred over the objections of California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. In a 52-page decision, Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote that the duties assigned to the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement activities.
Presidents deploying the National Guard in a state over the objections of a governor has been rare in U.S. history. Nonetheless, President Donald Trump has suggested he might deploy National Guard troops in other Democrat-led jurisdictions, including Chicago.
Why We Wrote This
When President Donald Trump sent the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, he violated a law prohibiting the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement activities, a judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling could serve as a guide for how courts interpret National Guard deployments in other states.
While Tuesday’s ruling does not have any legal force outside of California, it could serve as a guide for how courts interpret National Guard deployments in other states, experts say. And the ruling might make President Trump hesitate before deploying the National Guard to another city.
“The same Posse Comitatus Act, and the same Constitution, apply in Chicago and Baltimore and across the country,” says Rachel VanLandingham, a former U.S. Air Force judge advocate.
“It’s a clear shot across the bow to President Trump as a warning to not do something similar in [other] cities.”
In referencing other potential deployments, Judge Breyer described Mr. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as trying to create “a national police force with the President as its chief.”
“There is no question that federal personnel should be able to perform their jobs without fearing for their safety,” the judge added. “But to use this as a hook to send military troops alongside federal agents wherever they go proves too much and would frustrate the very purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act.”
Headed for the Supreme Court?
Judge Breyer stayed his injunction until Sept. 12, giving time for the administration to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His ruling also stated that the 300 National Guard members still in Los Angeles can remain in place, as long as they’re acting within the bounds of the law.
The Justice Department declined to comment, and the Pentagon deferred to the White House. In a statement on Tuesday, Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson said that the ruling “will not be the final say on the issue.”
“Once again, a rogue judge is trying to usurp the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to protect American cities from violence and destruction,” Ms. Kelly added, according to a social media post.
The case appears destined to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and some legal experts say the administration could have a strong case.
In June, a panel of appeals court judges overturned an emergency order from Judge Breyer pausing the deployment in Los Angeles, known as Task Force 51. The Trump administration will be seeking a similar outcome now regarding Judge Breyer’s second ruling that the duties of those deployed violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
Judge Breyer, the brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, “is a decidedly liberal judge who has issued many rulings against the Trump administration,” says John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Most of them haven’t fared well once they reach the courts of appeal, and I expect that here.”
The decision came after Judge Breyer held a three-day bench trial in the case last month, featuring testimony from high-ranking officers involved in Task Force 51. At one point, the court saw a U.S. Army training slide describing what the Posse Comitatus Act prohibited National Guard troops from doing in Los Angeles.
“The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers … and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles,” wrote Judge Breyer. “In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”
The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the U.S. military domestically. It holds that members of the military can only engage in law enforcement activities on home soil with direct authorization from Congress.
The law enshrined the constitutional principle that, while the president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military, only Congress has the power to declare war and “provide for calling forth the Militia to … suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”
“Congress has made it very clear when a president can and cannot use military force … in law enforcement domestically,” says Joshua Kastenberg, a former lawyer and judge for the Air Force.
“In a sense, the administration has been their own worst enemy,” he adds.
“The government got greedy”
The decision on Tuesday referenced three specific operations: three raids of marijuana and cannabis farms by federal agencies, all of which occurred outside of Los Angeles County.
“The government got greedy,” says Professor VanLandingham, who teaches at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. “They shot themselves in the foot and engaged in extreme overreach without the statutory and constitutional basis for doing so.”
Seemingly aware of this, Judge Breyer’s ruling is narrow. The Task Force 51 deployment as a whole is not illegal, he held, but it prohibits military troops in California from engaging in law enforcement activities such as arrests, searches, seizures, riot control, and interrogation. The decision applies only to Secretary Hegseth and the Defense Department – not to Mr. Trump.
The ruling is still flawed, says Mr. Malcolm. Other potential deployments that Mr. Trump has talked about, such as in Chicago to address violent crime, might be on shakier legal ground. But in Los Angeles, the Heritage Foundation fellow adds: “You had troops come in to [help] federal officials execute federal laws. President Trump was well within his [rights] to do that.”
The legal confrontation comes as Mr. Trump has escalated his rhetoric and his action around National Guard deployments.
Last week, he signed an executive order creating “rapid mobilization” units in the National Guard to assist in “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety.”
Then, over the weekend, he criticized Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker in a social media post calling out violent crime in Chicago. “He better straighten it out, FAST, or we’re coming!” wrote Mr. Trump.
Overall, the stakes appear to be ratcheting up as courts wrestle with another Trump-powered test of bedrock constitutional principles.
“Regardless of what courts ultimately say, I think this is concerning,” says Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a conservative anti-Trump organization.
“The use of the military for domestic law enforcement has profound risks,” he adds. “It should be something that the federal government does as a matter of last resort and great reluctance.”