What Happened
On June 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully federalized members of California’s National Guard. This ruling came amid ongoing protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the deployment of military troops in response to civil unrest. The judge ordered the immediate return of control over the National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had filed a lawsuit against the federal government after Trump mobilized the troops in reaction to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
The ruling has significant implications, as it challenges the authority of the President to unilaterally deploy National Guard troops without state consent. The Justice Department has indicated plans to appeal the ruling, seeking a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court does not act by noon on June 13, control of the National Guard will revert to Governor Newsom.
Key Details
- Ruling: Judge Breyer’s 36-page ruling stated that Trump’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- Protests: The protests in Los Angeles have been largely peaceful but have escalated tensions between state and federal authorities, particularly regarding immigration enforcement.
- National Guard Deployment: The judge’s ruling specifically addresses the federalization of California’s National Guard, which Trump had ordered to assist in controlling protests and supporting federal law enforcement operations.
- Appeal Process: The Justice Department has filed a notice of appeal and is prepared to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary.
- Public Response: The ruling has been met with mixed reactions, with some viewing it as a victory for state rights and others expressing concerns about the implications for national security and federal authority.
Multiple Perspectives
California Governor Gavin Newsom hailed the ruling as a significant victory for the Constitution and state authority, stating that it confirms the limits of presidential power. He criticized Trump’s actions as an overreach and a misuse of military resources, emphasizing that the military should not be used for domestic policing.
Conversely, the Trump administration argues that the ruling represents an unprecedented intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Administration officials contend that the deployment of the National Guard was necessary to protect federal officers and property from violent protests.
Military personnel involved in the deployment have expressed discomfort with their assignment, feeling that they are being used as political pawns. Advocacy groups representing military families have reported that service members are unhappy about being involved in domestic policing, which they believe is outside their traditional role.
Context & Background
The ruling comes at a time of heightened tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in the U.S. The Trump administration’s policies have faced significant backlash, leading to widespread protests across the country. The deployment of National Guard troops in California was part of a broader strategy to address civil unrest related to immigration enforcement and to support federal law enforcement agencies.
Historically, the use of military forces in domestic situations has been contentious, with concerns about the militarization of law enforcement and the potential for violence. The legal and constitutional implications of the President’s authority to deploy troops without state consent are also significant, as they touch on the balance of power between state and federal governments.
What We Don’t Know Yet
As the situation develops, several uncertainties remain. The outcome of the Justice Department’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court is pending, and it is unclear whether the court will grant a stay on the ruling. Additionally, the broader implications of this ruling on future state-federal relations regarding military deployments are yet to be fully understood.
Furthermore, the public sentiment surrounding the protests and the deployment of military personnel is evolving, and future demonstrations may influence the political landscape. The reactions of military personnel and their families to the ongoing situation may also shape discussions about the role of the military in domestic affairs.
Overall, the ruling against Trump regarding the National Guard represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate about the limits of presidential power and the rights of states to govern their own resources in times of crisis.
