This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/newsom-restraining-order-trump-troops-los-angeles

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Federal judge rules Trump illegally deployed national guard troops to Los Angeles Federal judge rules Trump illegally deployed national guard troops to Los Angeles
(31 minutes later)
Temporary restraining order issued by judge said president overstepped authority and to hand over control to state governorTemporary restraining order issued by judge said president overstepped authority and to hand over control to state governor
LA protests – live updates A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Donald Trump illegally deployed the California national guard to suppress protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles and ordered the force to be returned to the control of the state governor, Gavin Newsom.
A federal judge ruled that Donald Trump illegally deployed the national guard against protesters in Los Angeles and ordered the US government to return control of the troops to California. The order by the US district judge Charles Breyer will not take effect until noon on Friday, but it marked a stinging defeat for the Trump administration that is sure to touch off a pitched legal battle destined for the US supreme court.
The US district judge, Charles Breyer, issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration on Thursday, saying the president had overstepped his authority by taking control of the national guard to quell demonstrations against immigration raids in LA. In issuing a temporary restraining order against Trump, Breyer found the president had failed to show there was a “rebellion” in Los Angeles that required him to federalize the guard and failed to comply with the procedural steps to notify the governor.
The order goes into effect on Friday at noon, with the judge saying the president had violated the 10th amendment, as the state of California had argued. “His actions were illegal – both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor,” Breyer wrote.
The justice department argued at a roughly hourlong hearing today that under the Title 10 statute invoked by Trump, the US president had the power to decide whether the protests had escalated and required the national guard to quell a “rebellion or a danger of rebellion”.
But Breyer said that the statute was not structured in a way that suggested Trump would have the power to be the sole determiner of whether such conditions had been met.
“If the president had complete discretion, why wouldn’t it say: ‘Whenever the president thought’ or ‘if the president agrees’ or ‘in the sole discretion of the president, he finds one, two and three’,” Breyer said to the justice department during a hearing. “They don’t say any of that.”
Although the protests have generally been peaceful with the exceptions of pockets that turned violent, the justice department contended Trump’s absolute discretion meant his underlying basis for his decisions could not be reviewed by federal courts.
The judge appeared particularly incredulous at the notion there could be no judicial review. “If the president finds there to be a rebellion, then it is a rebellion,” Breyer said with his voice sharply rising in intonation. “How is that any different to what a monarchist does?”
The lawyer for the California governor, Gavin Newsom, who filed the request for an injunction, argued mobilizing the guard was a power delegated by Congress – meaning it was not an inherent power of the president that made his decisions unreviewable.
“They are saying that the president, by fiat, can federalize the national guard and deploy it in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives that there is disobedience to an order,” Nicholas Green told the judge.
The request for the injunction is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump’s move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based in Twentynine Palms, California, over Newsom’s objections.The request for the injunction is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump’s move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based in Twentynine Palms, California, over Newsom’s objections.
The complaint argued there was no basis to call in the national guard because the protests did not rise to the level of rebellion, and that the Trump administration did not satisfy the procedural requirement to consult with the governor to federalize the state’s national guard. “Our success today in court is a win for all Americans,” Newsom said in a statement shortly after the order. “The president’s action to turn the military against its own citizens threatened our democracy and moved us dangerously close to authoritarianism.”
The decision came hours after a hearing in federal district court in San Francisco where the justice department argued Trump had the sole and unreviewable power to decide whether there was a “rebellion” that needed federal intervention.
Breyer rejected both arguments in his sweeping 36-page opinion, effectively rebuking the justice department for trying to suggest the conditions to take control of the guard had been met as long as Trump had decided himself that was the case.
“The president’s discretion in what to do next does not mean that the president can unilaterally and without judicial review declare that a vacancy exists in order to fill it. That is classic ipse dixit,” Breyer wrote, adding that the definition of rebellion had clearly not been met.
Breyer was also skeptical of the justice department’s contention that Trump had followed the procedural step of ordering the guard “through” the governor by only directly notifying the adjutant general of the California national guard, to whom Newsom had delegated authority.
“Regardless of whether Defendants gave Governor Newsom an opportunity to consult with them or consent to the federalization of California’s National Guard, they did not issue their orders through him,” Breyer wrote.
Sign up to This Week in TrumplandSign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administrationA deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
The justice department said they interpreted the statute to mean Trump’s order had to be logistically “passed through” the governor and that in this case, it had notified the adjutant general of the California national guard, to which Newsom had delegated authority. The temporary restraining order did not touch on Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth moving to deploy the marines, in large part because the justice department told the judge they were only being used to protect federal buildings and personnel.
Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish the protesters more aggressively. Using the military for protective purposes, Breyer suggested at the hearing, would not be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law prohibiting the use of troops to engage in law enforcement activities on domestic soil.
Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish them more aggressively.
Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” he said of the president’s usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. “The next time, I’m not waiting.”Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” he said of the president’s usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. “The next time, I’m not waiting.”
The Associated Press contributed reporting