In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on September 2, 2025, that the Trump administration broke federal law by deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer. The 52-page ruling, delivered from San Francisco, found that President Donald Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests and support immigration raids in California violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a law dating back to 1878 that restricts the federal government’s ability to use the military for domestic law enforcement.
Judge Breyer’s decision is set to take effect on September 12, 2025, and, for now, only applies to California. The ruling not only bars the 300 remaining National Guard soldiers from engaging in a wide range of law enforcement activities—including making arrests, crowd control, and evidence collection—but also raises pointed questions about the boundaries of presidential power and the specter of a “national police force with the President as its chief,” as Breyer warned in his opinion, reported BBC and Los Angeles Times.
The deployment in question began in early June 2025, when roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines were sent to Los Angeles following days of protest against sweeping immigration raids. The move was unprecedented in recent decades, as it was undertaken without a request from California’s governor—a significant escalation in federal intervention. The protests themselves were marked by dramatic scenes: thousands of demonstrators blocked freeways, some set self-driving cars on fire, and law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs, according to Associated Press.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal opponent of the deployment, responded to the ruling by declaring, “The court sided with democracy and the Constitution. No president is a king—not even Trump—and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people.” Newsom’s comments echoed the sentiments of many state officials, who argued that local law enforcement was capable of handling the unrest without military assistance.
The Trump administration, however, has vowed to fight the decision. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly dismissed the ruling, stating, “Once again, a rogue judge is trying to usurp the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to protect American cities from violence and destruction.” She added, “The President is committed to protecting law-abiding citizens, and this will not be the final say on the issue.” The Department of Justice has already indicated it will appeal, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
At the heart of the dispute is the Posse Comitatus Act, which was intended to prevent the military from becoming a tool of domestic policing except in the most extreme circumstances. The Trump administration argued that the law did not apply in this case because the troops were protecting federal officers and property, not enforcing civilian laws directly. Yet Judge Breyer was unconvinced, pointing to evidence that soldiers were used to “set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.” He found that these activities went well beyond what was permitted—even under the administration’s own training materials.
Breyer’s skepticism was palpable during the trial. At one point, he pressed government lawyers, asking, “Why is the National Guard still around? What is the threat today? What was the threat yesterday or two weeks ago that allowed it?” He further challenged the administration’s legal rationale, describing it as “Alice in Wonderland” logic, and questioned whether there were “any limits to the use of a federal force.”
The ruling also revealed new details about the military’s actions in Southern California. Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who initially commanded the troops, testified that soldiers were given explicit materials outlining activities prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. Despite this, he said he was told by superiors that a “constitutional exception” allowed such actions if they were protecting federal assets. Judge Breyer was not persuaded, finding that the administration “knew they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority.”
Legal experts say the implications of the case could be far-reaching. Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University, told the Los Angeles Times, “If Breyer sides with Newsom and the 9th Circuit sides with Trump, we now have a playbook to use the National Guard and maybe the military around the country. That would make bad law for the country.” Others, like retired Army Lt. Col. Daniel Maurer, called the Trump administration’s use of the military “the most aggressive use of the military domestically when the facts to support them are extremely weak.”
The controversy is not limited to California. President Trump has openly discussed deploying National Guard troops to other Democratic-led cities, including Chicago, Baltimore, and New York. “We’re going in,” Trump told reporters, though he declined to specify a timeline. He insisted, “I have an obligation. This isn’t a political thing.” However, Democratic leaders in those cities, such as Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, have pushed back, noting that crime has fallen and threatening legal action if federal troops are sent in without their consent.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already played a role in a related legal battle. Earlier this summer, Judge Breyer ruled to strip the president of command over federalized troops, finding that Trump had overstepped his authority. The appellate court quickly reversed that decision, finding the president had broad—though not “unreviewable”—discretion over domestic military deployments. This ongoing judicial back-and-forth has left many legal scholars wondering just how much power the president truly has to use the military within U.S. borders.
For now, Judge Breyer’s order stands as a clear rebuke to the Trump administration’s approach. The judge barred the National Guard from “engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.” He also warned that the administration’s actions risked setting a dangerous precedent: “What’s to prevent a national police force? Is there any limit?”
As the legal battle moves to the appeals court, the nation waits to see whether Judge Breyer’s sharp limits on presidential authority will hold—or whether the White House’s vision of expanded military involvement in domestic affairs will prevail. The outcome could shape the balance of power between federal and state governments for years to come.
