Judge Blocks Trump’s Deployment of National Guard in LA

A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard to Los Angeles, declaring the move unlawful. The order, which restores control of the Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom, is temporarily on hold while the administration appeals.

California challenged US President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the troops without Newsom’s consent, filing a lawsuit on June 9. Trump said he was sending them to help ease unrest stemming from protests against his immigration crackdown. Local officials insisted the situation was already under control and that additional forces were not needed.

US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the key legal question was whether Trump followed Congress’s framework for employing a state’s National Guard. “His actions were illegal… He must return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California immediately,” the judge wrote.

The order was stayed until June 13 afternoon to enable the administration to appeal, which it promptly did.

On social media, Newsom said the ruling “confirms what we all know the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.”

The Trump administration maintained that federal intervention was necessary to aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in arresting individuals suspected of unlawful residence in the country. Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard soldiers alongside 700 Marines, some with the power to detain suspects until the police arrived.

Department of Justice lawyer, Brett Shumate, argued Newsom’s consent was not required. “He was fully aware of this order… he objected to it, but there is only one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.”

“That is not accurate,” said Judge Breyer. “We are talking about the President’s exercise of his authority. And the President is, of course, limited in his authority. That is the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”

The Trump administration relied on a federal law that allows the President to call up the National Guard during a “rebellion.” But in its suit, the state argued there was no rebellion or insurrection,  noting that the protests, while significant, fell short of meeting that standard.

“At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have experienced in previous years, including in the recent past,” the state’s filing said.

The last time a President deployed the National Guard without a governor’s consent was more than 50 years ago. It is much more common for governors to activate their own troops in response to natural disasters or other crises, and then request federal assistance afterwards.