A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard during the immigration protests and enforcement operations in Los Angeles was illegal, citing violations of federal law that restrict military involvement in domestic law enforcement activities.
The ruling was delivered by Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 2, 2025. Judge Breyer found that the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area over the summer breached a federal law designed to prevent the military from enforcing domestic laws, specifically referencing the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military roles in civilian law enforcement.
This legal decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of California, which contended that the National Guard’s participation in immigration enforcement and the management of ensuing protests constituted unlawful military enforcement of local laws.
According to the judge’s order, the National Guard was prohibited from engaging in activities such as security patrols, riot control, making arrests, conducting searches, and crowd control related to these events. The order is set to take effect on September 12, 2025, allowing time for the Trump administration to file an appeal.
Despite the ruling, Judge Breyer did not mandate the immediate withdrawal of National Guard troops still present in the area at the time of the verdict. This decision reflects an attempt to balance enforcement of the law with administrative procedures surrounding the appeal process. However, the decision reinforces the principle that presidential deployment of military forces within U.S. borders must adhere strictly to federal legal limits.
The controversy began during the summer when the Trump administration sent National Guard troops to southern California amid heightened immigration enforcement efforts and related protests. Opponents argued that using military forces for such purposes blurred the lines between civilian policing and military actions, potentially violating constitutional protections and federal statutes.
This case highlights ongoing tensions between federal and state authorities over immigration enforcement policies and the use of military forces in civilian contexts. Legal experts note that the ruling underlines the judiciary’s role in checking executive powers and safeguarding civil liberties against overreach.
The Trump administration has signaled its intent to appeal the ruling, arguing that the deployment was necessary to maintain public order and support law enforcement agencies overwhelmed by protests and enforcement actions.
As the appeal process unfolds, this case will likely serve as a significant precedent regarding the limits of presidential authority to deploy military forces within U.S. borders, particularly in politically sensitive areas such as immigration enforcement and protest management.