A federal judge has delivered a powerful blow to President Trump's controversial use of the National Guard, ruling that the deployment of armed soldiers in Los Angeles must end immediately. This decision, handed down on Wednesday, marks a significant legal victory for those challenging the President's authority to police American streets with military force.
The ruling, by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, states that command of the remaining 300 federalized National Guard troops must be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom had previously sued the administration after thousands of troops were sent to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
But here's where it gets controversial: the judge's decision is just the latest twist in a complex legal battle. In June, Breyer ruled the deployment illegal, only for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse that decision. The court argued that the esoteric statute invoked by Trump granted him significant deference in determining whether a rebellion was occurring in Los Angeles, as claimed by the Justice Department.
And this is the part most people miss: a similar sequence played out in Oregon this autumn. California Guard troops were sent to help quell demonstrations outside an ICE facility, but the decision was later vacated amid claims that the Justice Department had misrepresented facts to the court.
The decision is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court considers an almost identical challenge regarding the deployment in Illinois. In both cases, conservative judicial appointees have expressed skepticism about the President's authority to order troops onto the ground and keep them federalized indefinitely.
Judge Jay Bybee, in a lengthy filing, argued that the "domestic violence" clause of the Constitution was a carefully crafted compromise, allowing the President to deploy armed soldiers against citizens only as a last resort. He further stated that the President should be required to provide proof of his claims, and the states should have the power to challenge them, especially when contrary evidence exists.
This position earned a sharp rebuke from Judge Eric Tung, a Trump appointee, who echoed the administration's claim that its deployments were beyond judicial review.
The exchange between these judges reflects a deepening divide within the 9th Circuit, once the most liberal appellate division in the United States. Trump's appointment of 10 judges during his first term has shifted the court's ideological balance, with recommendations from the Article III Project, led by Mike Davis, moving further right than those of Leonard Leo, a previous curator of judicial picks.
But the hurdles facing Trump's domestic deployments go beyond infighting on the appellate bench. In October, the Supreme Court ordered both the administration and the state of Illinois to address a theory put forth by Georgetown University law professor Martin S. Lederman, who argued that the statute only allows presidents to federalize the National Guard after deploying the active-duty military.
"If the court wants to rule against Trump on this, that's the least offensive way," said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State College of Law. "It's a way to avoid all factual determinations for the moment." However, such a ruling could open the door to even more aggressive military action in the future, warn Segall and others.
"If the Supreme Court says, 'you must use the active-duty military first,' it effectively declares everything that's happened so far illegal," said David Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight. "But then we face the prospect of more active-duty troops being deployed."
Congress is also scrutinizing Trump's troop deployments, with the Senate Armed Services Committee set to hear testimony on Thursday from military leaders about these repeated domestic deployments. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) stated, "Donald Trump has illegally deployed our nation's servicemembers into American cities under unclear and false pretexts, despite the costs to our military and civil rights. The American people and our troops deserve answers."
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to push the boundaries of executive power in court. In recent weeks, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that once federalized, state Guard troops would remain under the President's command indefinitely. Judge Breyer rejected this position as "contrary to law" in his ruling.
"Defendants' argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government," Breyer wrote.
California leaders celebrated Wednesday's ruling as a turning point in their uphill legal battle to constrain the President's use of state troops. The order is set to take effect on Monday, although an appeal to the 9th Circuit is almost certain.
"The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations," Governor Newsom stated. "We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service."
Attorney General Rob Bonta described the ruling as "a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law." However, some legal scholars and civil liberties experts warn that repeated deployments and the accompanying court battles could desensitize the public to the politicization of the military around the midterm elections.
"The sense of normalization is probably part of the plan," said Janovsky. "Having troops trained for war on the streets of American cities puts everyone at greater risk. The more we blur those lines, the higher the risk that troops will be used for inappropriate purposes against the American people."
This ongoing legal battle raises important questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and the role of the military in domestic affairs. As the case continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how the courts navigate these complex issues and the potential implications for future administrations.
