Busted: Court Declares Trump's Los Angeles National Guard Deployment Unlawful
Los Angeles' National Guard deployment ruled unlawful by the court.
In a nail-biting decision, a district court in San Francisco has slapped President Donald Trump for deploying the National Guard in California without the state's permission, stating that the move was unconstitutional. Judge Charles Breyer dashed Trump's plans, ordering him to hand control back to California Governor Gavin Newsom. The ruling, set to take effect this Friday, has the US government fuming and vowing to appeal.
California's Governor has been no fan of Trump's immigration policy, branding thousands of National Guard soldiers and the planned deployment of Marine infantry in Los Angeles as an "unnecessary militarization." In response to this, the judge stated, "The court just confirmed what we all know: The military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
Typically, the federal states manage the National Guard, but the President can take command during times of war or national emergencies. On paper, the National Guard is a military reserve unit, parked under the US armed forces. Deployed in times of natural disasters, riots, or internal emergencies, the Guard is a versatile force.
The court's decision stems from Trump's attempt to seize control of California's National Guard, citing Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The section enables the federal deployment of the National Guard in response to a "rebellion" or "danger of a rebellion." However, Breyer reasoned that the civil unrest and occasional violence during immigration protests did not meet the definition of a rebellion. In layman's terms, it was far from an armed insurrection.
The ruling reaffirms the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring state sovereignty. It sends a clear message to future administrations that federal control of state National Guard units should only be granted in the event of a true rebellion or insurrection.
While the ruling has set a valuable precedent, it's far from the end of the road. The US government has applied for a stay in a higher court, hoping to keep the National Guard deployed while the legal saga continues. The ongoing tension between the Trump administration and California will likely simmer, with both sides lobbing legal salvos in the coming months.
Sources:
- ntv.de
- ino/dpa
- [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-governor-newsom-announces-complete-transition-federal-support-state-immigration-enforcement
- [2] https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/05/politics/trump-national-guard-deployment-los-angeles/index.html
- [3] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-judge-rules-LA-National-Guard-16037396.php
- [4] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-05/trump-los-angeles-national-guard-judge-emergency
Insights:
- Legal Basis Challenged: President Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to justify the deployment, but the administration failed to demonstrate the existence of a rebellion or insurrection in Los Angeles.
- Ruling Summary: The judge determined that federal authority was not warranted and ordered President Trump to relinquish control of California's National Guard troops back to the state.
- Implications: The decision reinforces the principle of checks and balances and affirms state governors' rights to retain control over their National Guard forces in matters of public order and safety within state borders. It also sets a precedent for future disputes over the use of federal authority to deploy troops domestically, limiting the misuse of statutes intended for national crises.
The Commission has also been consulted on the draft directive, given the recent court decision that declared President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California unlawful. This ruling, a testament to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, highlights the critical role of politics in ensuring state sovereignty and general news.
