Judge finds Trump violated military law by activating National Guard in CA

Federal Judge Rules Trump Violated Military Law in Deploying National Guard to California

On September 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a 1878 law prohibiting the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement—by federalizing thousands of California’s National Guard members and deploying a small contingent of Marines to Los Angeles amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in June 2025, challenging Trump’s unprecedented activation of state troops without gubernatorial consent. While most troops have been demobilized, Breyer blocked any future similar uses in California, describing the administration’s actions as creating a “national police force with the President as its chief.” The ruling applies solely to California but carries potential national implications as Trump has threatened similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities to combat street crime.

This marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battle, which began with Breyer’s initial June 12, 2025, order declaring the deployment illegal under Title 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (governing National Guard federalization) and the Tenth Amendment (reserving police powers to states). That order was quickly stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has repeatedly deferred to presidential authority while allowing the troops to remain on the ground. However, Breyer’s latest focus on the Posse Comitatus Act addresses concerns that federalized Guard members and Marines were assisting ICE agents in raids, effectively enforcing civilian laws—a role reserved for local and state authorities unless specific exceptions apply, such as the Insurrection Act (which Trump has not invoked).

Background of the Deployment and Protests

• Triggering Events: On June 7, 2025, Trump federalized approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops and deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests that erupted after ICE conducted large-scale workplace raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Protesters blocked federal agents, vandalized property, and clashed with law enforcement, including incidents involving Molotov cocktails, fireworks, and damage to federal buildings. Trump cited these as a “rebellion against the authority of the United States” under Title 10, bypassing Newsom despite the statute’s requirement to issue orders “through the governors.”
• State Objections: Newsom, who was not consulted, argued the unrest was “civil unrest” manageable by local police, not a rebellion warranting military intervention. He sued, claiming the move violated state sovereignty, inflamed tensions, and diverted Guard resources from critical duties like wildfire prevention and fentanyl interdiction. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass imposed a curfew, but protests led to over 300 arrests and freeway shutdowns.
• Troop Roles: The administration insisted troops were limited to protecting federal personnel and property, not direct law enforcement. However, evidence from depositions (including one from California’s Adjutant General) showed some Guard members accompanied ICE during operations, prompting Posse Comitatus claims.

This is the first presidential federalization of a state’s National Guard over a governor’s objection since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed troops to Alabama for civil rights enforcement.

Key Elements of Judge Breyer’s Ruling

Breyer’s 36-page opinion on September 2 reiterated and expanded his June findings:

• Posse Comitatus Violation: The Act bars federal troops from “executing the laws” domestically unless authorized by Congress. Breyer found Trump’s deployment exceeded this, as troops assisted in immigration enforcement—a civilian function. He noted, “The military cannot be used to suppress protests or aid federal agents in arrests without clear statutory exception.”
• Procedural and Constitutional Flaws: Trump failed to route orders through Newsom, violating Title 10. The protests did not meet the “rebellion” threshold: “Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient… The protests fall far short.” This also infringed the Tenth Amendment by usurping state police powers.
• Irreparable Harm: Continued militarization “inflames tensions,” risks loss of life, and deprives California of Guard assets for emergencies. Breyer rejected administration claims of unreviewable presidential authority, stating courts must check executive overreach to avoid a “constitutional government” becoming like “King George.”
• Scope and Remedies: The injunction blocks Trump and Hegseth from using military in California for law enforcement. It does not affect Marines (not yet fully deployed) but requires further litigation. About 300 Guard members remain at a training base; Breyer deemed this “significant” enough for violation.

Newsom celebrated on social media: “Trump LOSES AGAIN. The courts agree—his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL.” The White House called it an “unprecedented” overreach, vowing an appeal.

Timeline of Legal Proceedings

The case has seen rapid back-and-forth in the courts:

The Ninth Circuit’s deference emphasized protecting federal interests (e.g., a Border Patrol agent’s shattered wrist from attacks) but acknowledged judicial review limits.

Broader Implications and Reactions

• National Scope: Trump’s warnings of Guard deployments to “blue cities” (e.g., for crime in D.C., where he recently federalized police) raise fears of expanded military use. On August 11, Breyer noted potential precedent for “domestic military activity.” Critics, including civil liberties groups, argue it erodes First Amendment rights to protest.
• Political Divide: Democrats like Newsom frame it as authoritarian overreach: “The President is not a king.” Republicans, including Hegseth, defend it as necessary for “lawless” areas, citing falling crime stats but persistent threats to federal agents. Trump posted on Truth Social: “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now.”
• Next Steps: The administration will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, potentially escalating to the Supreme Court. Most troops are demobilized, minimizing immediate impact, but the ruling could constrain future actions. California seeks to limit troops to non-enforcement roles.
• Historical Context: Echoes past uses, like 1992 LA riots (with gubernatorial request) or 2020 protests (limited federal role). Posse Comitatus has rarely been enforced strictly, but Breyer’s decision signals judicial willingness to intervene amid polarized immigration debates.

This ruling underscores tensions between federal authority and state rights in Trump’s second term. For updates, follow the Ninth Circuit docket or official statements from the White House and California AG’s office.