In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the nation’s legal and political circles, a federal judge in California has ruled that President Donald Trump’s deployment of the military—including hundreds of Marines and thousands of National Guard soldiers—to Los Angeles earlier this year violated federal law. The 52-page opinion, issued by Judge Charles Breyer on September 2, 2025, found that the president’s use of armed forces in response to protests and civil unrest over federal immigration sweeps ran afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century statute designed to keep the military out of domestic law enforcement.
The ruling, which is stayed until September 12 to allow time for appeals, blocks the Trump administration from using the military for a wide range of law enforcement functions, including arrests, searches, security and crowd control, unless valid constitutional or legal exceptions are presented. According to CalMatters, Judge Breyer wrote that “there were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”
Judge Breyer’s decision directly challenges the administration’s rationale for sending troops, which included 700 U.S. Marines and 4,000 National Guard soldiers, to Southern California. The court found that the military’s involvement went far beyond a supporting role, with soldiers setting up armed perimeters, blocking traffic, and participating in crowd control—classic police functions that the Posse Comitatus Act expressly forbids. “The record is replete with evidence that Task Force 51 executed domestic law in these prohibited ways,” Breyer wrote, adding that the administration “instigated a months-long deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles for the purpose of establishing a military presence there and enforcing federal law.”
The decision caps a tense legal battle between California officials and the federal government. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom, both plaintiffs in the case, hailed the ruling as a victory for civil liberties and a rebuke of presidential overreach. Bonta declared that the court’s decision “affirms that President Trump is not king, and the power of the executive is not boundless.” Newsom echoed that sentiment, stating, “Trump is breaking the law by trying to create a national police force with himself as its chief.”
This legal saga has unfolded against a backdrop of escalating tensions over federal authority and the use of military power in American cities. According to The Daily Blast podcast from The New Republic, the ruling was “unsparing,” finding that Trump’s actions amounted to “creating a national police force with the president as its chief.” The court’s order is limited to California for now, but observers warn it could set a precedent as Trump threatens to deploy troops to other cities like Chicago and New York.
Following the ruling, President Trump responded with characteristic defiance. Speaking to reporters, he insisted that the military would “definitely” be sent into Chicago and threatened to redeploy troops to California, despite opposition from local officials. “He’s going to need us again because it’s starting to form again. I see it. It’s starting to form again,” Trump said, referring to Governor Newsom and unrest in California. He continued, “Well, we’re going in. I didn’t say when; we’re going in,” when asked about Chicago, citing recent crime statistics—a claim contradicted by falling crime rates in both cities, as noted by The Daily Blast.
Legal experts have weighed in on the broader implications of the case. Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and guest on The Daily Blast, explained that the Posse Comitatus Act was enacted to prevent exactly this kind of military overreach. “People probably know that the Posse Comitatus Act is the statute passed in the 1800s that makes it a crime for military troops to perform law enforcement tasks,” McQuade said, noting the law’s roots in colonial resistance to British soldiers enforcing civil order. She emphasized that the judge’s order was a “proper exercise of judicial restraint and respect for a coequal branch of government.”
The Trump administration, however, has pushed back, arguing that the National Guard is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act when federalized under certain statutes. Judge Breyer rejected this, writing, “The Court will not take Defendants’ invitation to create a brand-new exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that nullifies the Act itself.” He insisted that if the president wishes to avoid the act’s restrictions, he must invoke a valid exception—such as the Insurrection Act—along with evidence that state and local law enforcement are unable or unwilling to act.
During the trial, evidence showed that National Guard soldiers had participated in more than 60 operations with federal immigration agents, accompanying them on about 75% of their missions in Southern California between June and early July. These troops set up perimeters, blocked traffic, and even apprehended at least one protester. At one point, military uniforms were indistinguishable from those worn by federal immigration officers, further blurring the line between military and police roles.
The Department of Defense, meanwhile, has issued a new activation order to keep troops in California for another 90 days, raising fresh concerns about ongoing military involvement in domestic affairs. Federal attorneys have argued that the military’s actions did not constitute law enforcement, but Judge Breyer was unpersuaded. “Defendants knowingly contradicted their own training materials, which listed twelve functions that the Posse Comitatus Act bars the military from performing,” he wrote.
The controversy has also played out in the public sphere, with Trump’s supporters and some Justice Department officials attempting to downplay the military’s law enforcement role. Bill Essayli, a U.S. attorney, claimed on social media that “the military has never engaged in direct law enforcement operations here in L.A.” But as McQuade pointed out, the court’s lengthy opinion detailed numerous instances where the military performed police functions, making such denials misleading at best.
Trump’s rhetoric following the ruling has only heightened tensions. His angry, unconstrained statements—threatening further military deployments and accusing local officials of incompetence—have fueled fears of a looming constitutional crisis. “It does not strike me as someone who’s capable of entertaining even for a second that what he’s doing might be illegal,” said Greg Sargent, host of The Daily Blast. McQuade warned that if the president were to defy the court’s order, “we will have seen a very egregious breach of the rule of law.”
The ruling’s immediate impact is limited to California, but legal analysts predict that similar challenges could arise if Trump follows through on threats to send troops to other cities. “We could very easily see the deployment of troops in other cities. And in the absence of a similar order, he could continue sending troops to new cities and creating some chaos there,” McQuade cautioned. The situation remains volatile, with the potential for escalation if the administration pursues appeals or attempts to circumvent the court’s restrictions.
As September 12 approaches—the day Judge Breyer’s order is set to take effect—the nation watches closely. The case has reignited debates over executive power, civil liberties, and the delicate balance between national security and the rule of law. For now, Judge Breyer’s ruling stands as a forceful reminder that, even in times of unrest, the principles enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act endure.
