A high-stakes trial is underway in California, initiated by Governor Gavin Newsom against President Donald Trump, challenging the legality of Trump’s deployment of 4,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June 2025. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, argues that Trump’s federalization of the state’s National Guard without Newsom’s consent was unlawful, unconstitutional, and an overreach of presidential authority. The trial, which began on August 11, 2025, is being heard by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer and centers on violations of federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Below is a detailed overview based on available information.
Background and Context
- Deployment Trigger: The deployment followed protests in Los Angeles starting June 6, 2025, sparked by aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations targeting immigrants. Protests escalated, with incidents of violence, including burning Waymo vehicles and clashes with law enforcement, prompting Trump to federalize 2,000 National Guard troops on June 7, later increasing to 4,000, and deploy 700 U.S. Marines to protect federal buildings.
- Legal Basis: Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. §12406, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority or when federal laws cannot be executed. The administration cited violence against federal officers and property damage as justification.
- California’s Objection: Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta argue that the deployment violated federal law requiring gubernatorial consent or communication “through” the governor, which Trump did not obtain. They also claim it breached the 10th Amendment by infringing on state sovereignty and violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement.
Key Legal Arguments
- California’s Case:
- Unlawful Federalization: The lawsuit contends that 10 U.S.C. §12406 requires orders to be issued “through” the governor, implying consent or at least direct communication, which Trump bypassed by coordinating through Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the California National Guard commander.
- No Rebellion: Newsom’s team argues that the Los Angeles protests, while disruptive, did not constitute a “rebellion” under the statute, as they were largely protected First Amendment activities with isolated violent incidents manageable by local law enforcement.
- Posse Comitatus Violation: California alleges that the National Guard’s role in assisting ICE with immigration enforcement exceeded their legal authority, violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement except in specific circumstances.
- State Sovereignty: The deployment is framed as an “unprecedented power grab” undermining California’s control over its National Guard, a critical state resource for emergencies like wildfires.
- Exacerbation of Tensions: The state claims the deployment inflamed protests, increasing from 250 to over 3,000 demonstrators post-deployment, creating chaos rather than resolving it.
- Trump Administration’s Defense:
- Broad Presidential Authority: The Justice Department, represented by attorney Brett Shumate, argues that §12406 grants the president broad discretion to federalize the National Guard without gubernatorial consent, especially in cases of violence against federal officers or property.
- Procedural Compliance: The administration contends that communicating the order through the Defense Secretary to the Guard commander satisfied the “through the governor” requirement, dismissing any procedural errors as minor “foot faults” fixable with paperwork.
- Judicial Deference: The DOJ asserts that courts should defer to the president’s judgment on national security matters, such as determining a “danger of rebellion,” and that Trump’s decision is unreviewable by the judiciary.
- Necessity: The administration cites specific violent acts—protesters throwing concrete, bottles, and Molotov cocktails, damaging federal buildings, and attacking a federal van—as justifying the deployment to protect federal assets and personnel.
Trial Developments
- Judge Breyer’s Stance: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, has expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s actions. During a June 12, 2025, hearing, he questioned the claim of an unreviewable presidential power, comparing it to monarchical authority rejected by the Constitution. He also doubted whether the protests met the threshold of a “rebellion.”
- Temporary Restraining Order: On June 12, Breyer granted Newsom’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), ruling the deployment illegal and returning control of the National Guard to California. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked this ruling on June 13, allowing Trump to retain control pending further litigation.
- Appeals Court Hearing: On June 17, the 9th Circuit, with a panel including two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, heard arguments. The court signaled that Trump likely had authority to federalize the Guard, citing violence during protests, but rejected his claim of unreviewable power. The panel’s June 20 ruling allowed Trump to maintain control, halting Breyer’s order, though the lawsuit continues.
- Current Trial: The bench trial, which began August 11, 2025, in Breyer’s courtroom, focuses on whether the deployment violated statutory and constitutional limits. On August 13, the third day, Breyer requested further arguments on legal issues, indicating a thorough examination. The trial is livestreamed on YouTube, reflecting public interest.
Additional Context
- Support from Other States: Twenty-two states, led by Washington, filed an amicus brief supporting Newsom, arguing that Trump’s actions threaten state sovereignty and the rule of law by setting a precedent for federal overreach into state militias. They warn of a chilling effect on First Amendment rights and diversion of National Guard resources from state needs like natural disaster response.
- Public and Political Reactions: Trump celebrated the appeals court’s ruling as a “BIG WIN” on Truth Social, framing the deployment as necessary to prevent Los Angeles from being “obliterated.” Newsom and Bonta, however, vowed to continue the legal fight, emphasizing democratic principles and state rights.
- Historical Precedent: This is the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the National Guard to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama, that a president has federalized a state’s Guard without gubernatorial consent.
- Related Developments: Posts on X suggest Trump’s simultaneous deployment of 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., on August 12, 2025, to address crime and homelessness may be a distraction from the California lawsuit, though this is speculative and unconfirmed.
Current Status and What’s Next
- The trial is ongoing, with no final ruling as of August 13, 2025. Breyer’s earlier rulings suggest he may lean toward finding the deployment unlawful, but the 9th Circuit’s decision indicates an uphill battle for California.
- The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Trump from federalizing the National Guard without state consent and to bar their use in immigration enforcement. The outcome could set a precedent for presidential authority over state militias.
- If either side loses, they can appeal to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially prolonging the legal battle.
- The deployment of 200 Marines to Los Angeles on June 13, 2025, remains a separate issue, as Breyer’s TRO did not cover them, and further legal filings may address this.
Critical Analysis
- Legal Merits: California’s case hinges on statutory interpretation and constitutional limits, but the vague definition of “rebellion” in §12406 and judicial deference to presidential national security decisions weaken their position, as noted by legal analysts.
- Political Dimensions: The lawsuit reflects a broader clash between California’s Democratic leadership and Trump’s Republican administration, with Newsom framing it as a defense against authoritarianism and Trump portraying it as restoring order.
- Practical Impact: The deployment has strained state resources, with California surging 800 additional state and local law enforcement officers to manage protests, highlighting the diversion of National Guard resources from state priorities like firefighting.
If you’d like me to dig deeper into specific legal arguments, provide updates on the trial’s outcome, or analyze related X posts for public sentiment, let me know! You can also watch the trial live on YouTube for real-time developments: [link provided in X post].