Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Deployment of National Guard in Los Angeles Violated Law
LOS ANGELES, September 2, 2025 — In a landmark decision, a federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and military personnel to Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal and violated the Posse Comitatus Act as well as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling dealt a significant blow to former President Donald Trump, emphasizing limits on presidential authority to use the military as a domestic policing force.
The legal battle was triggered after Trump deployed approximately 5,000 National Guard soldiers and Marines to Los Angeles in June 2025, declaring a public safety emergency without the consent of California’s state government or city officials. The move was vehemently opposed by California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who argued it was an unconstitutional militarization of civilian law enforcement.
Judge Breyer’s Blistering Ruling
U.S. District Judge Stephen Breyer issued a detailed 36-page opinion outlining how the Trump administration exceeded its statutory authority. The order prohibits the administration from deploying, instructing, or using the National Guard in California to perform civil law enforcement activities such as arrests, searches, crowd control, traffic regulation, and interrogations.
According to Judge Breyer, the administration’s use of soldiers obscured by armored gear to create roadblocks, enforce public order, and establish a military presence violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. Furthermore, the court held that the unauthorized deployment infringed on state sovereignty protected by the 10th Amendment.
State and Veterans Voice Concerns
Governor Newsom hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional democracy, stating, “No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people.” He criticized the notion of creating a “national police force” under presidential control and condemned the authoritarian overreach.
High-ranking retired U.S. military officials, including four-star admirals and generals, joined veteran groups in an amicus brief warning about the grave risks associated with using the military to police civilian populations, emphasizing the dangerous precedent set by such actions.
Legal Implications and Future Impact
This ruling could have sweeping implications nationwide, especially as the Trump administration had hinted at deploying military forces to other U.S. cities under similar justifications. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously paused Judge Breyer’s injunction, allowing troops to remain deployed in Los Angeles temporarily while further proceedings continue. The appellate court acknowledged the president’s broad authority in deploying military forces domestically but noted that such authority is “not unreviewable.”
Critics assert the use of military forces in civilian settings heightens tensions and undermines democratic policing principles. Legal experts view this decision as a critical affirmation of constitutional checks and balances limiting executive power.
Background on the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the use of the U.S. Army and Air Force to enforce domestic policies unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, thereby safeguarding state authority in matters such as law enforcement.
In this case, the court found the administration’s actions infringed on California’s rights, setting a precedent regarding the limits of federal military intervention in domestic law enforcement.
Conclusion
The federal court’s decision marks a decisive rebuke of the Trump administration’s controversial National Guard deployment in Los Angeles. It reaffirms constitutional limits on presidential power and underscores the importance of respecting state authority and civilian governance in policing matters.
Governor Newsom and other critics remain vigilant against future attempts to militarize domestic policing, poised to challenge such measures aggressively in courts to protect constitutional rights and democratic norms.