Federal Judge blocks Trump’s National Guard deployment in California: A clash over constitutional authority
In a dramatic legal rebuke, a federal judge has ordered former President Donald Trump to relinquish control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, siding with California Governor Gavin Newsom in a dispute that strikes at the heart of federal and state authority. The temporary restraining order, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, effectively halts the federal deployment at noon Friday, casting doubt on the legality of Trump’s earlier decision to federalize the California National Guard for immigration enforcement and crowd control.
The judge ruled that the president's action violated both the Tenth Amendment — which reserves certain powers to the states — and federal law governing the use of National Guard forces. Breyer’s decision underscores that the circumstances in Los Angeles did not meet the legal thresholds required for the federal government to assume command over state troops.
The Legal Battle Over Federal Power
The controversy began when President Trump ordered approximately 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to growing protests against his administration’s aggressive immigration policies. Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code — a federal statute allowing the president to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions such as invasion, insurrection, or when the government is unable to enforce its laws.
However, in his ruling, Judge Breyer firmly rejected the administration’s rationale. “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” he wrote, dismantling the argument that the unrest qualified as the type of emergency Title 10 was designed to address.
Governor Newsom, who filed suit to block the deployment, argued that the president’s decision not only overstepped constitutional boundaries but also risked further inflaming tensions. Newsom initially permitted a limited deployment to protect federal buildings but objected to Guard troops being used to assist immigration agents in conducting raids.
“The deployment of these forces in support of immigration enforcement only serves to escalate an already volatile situation,” Newsom’s legal team argued in court filings.
Federal Pushback and Immediate Appeal
The Trump administration, for its part, characterized Newsom’s lawsuit as a “crass political stunt endangering American lives.” Federal attorneys insisted that the president acted within his authority, citing Trump’s notification to the commanding general as sufficient compliance with legal procedures.
Brett Shumate, representing the federal government, maintained that the president’s powers under Title 10 would have allowed him to deploy the Guard even without gubernatorial consent.
Immediately following the ruling, the federal government filed an emergency appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling that the legal battle is far from over.
Troops Already Engaged on the Ground
By the time of the ruling, the deployment was already well underway. According to Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, commander of Task Force 51, about 500 National Guard troops had been trained and assigned to accompany federal agents on immigration operations. Images circulated by immigration authorities showed Guard personnel providing security during raids — the very activity Newsom sought to prevent through legal action.
Sherman noted that the judge’s ruling does not apply to active-duty Marines also stationed in Los Angeles as part of federal response efforts.
Constitutional Implications
The case spotlights enduring tensions between federal authority and states’ rights — a recurring theme in American constitutional history. While the president holds certain emergency powers, the National Guard traditionally operates under the control of state governors, except under extraordinary circumstances explicitly defined by law.
Judge Breyer’s ruling affirms this principle, emphasizing that federal power must remain within its legal limits, particularly when it risks overriding state sovereignty.
As the Ninth Circuit prepares to hear the appeal, the dispute stands as a stark reminder of the delicate balance of power in the American federal system — and how that balance can be tested during moments of political and social unrest.
