Randros 
In a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement strategy, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer has ruled that the administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles earlier this year violated federal law.
The decision, issued on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, underscores tensions between federal authority and state rights, highlighting restrictions on using the military for domestic policing.
The controversy stems from June 2025, when President Trump mobilized approximately 4,000 California National Guard members and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to widespread protests against federal immigration raids and deportations.
Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in downtown L.A., opposing what they viewed as aggressive deportation policies.
The troops were tasked with duties including security patrols, traffic control, crowd and riot management, and protecting federal property and personnel.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and state officials strongly opposed the move, arguing it created an atmosphere of fear that disrupted daily life, leading to restaurant closures, event cancellations, and residents staying indoors.
The state filed a lawsuit, contending the deployment overstepped presidential powers and violated longstanding laws separating military and civilian law enforcement roles.
This marked the second legal challenge; an earlier June ruling by Judge Breyer deeming the action illegal was overturned by an appeals court, allowing the troops to remain temporarily.
The Ruling: Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Judge Breyer, a Clinton appointee based in San Francisco, delivered a 52-page opinion declaring the deployment unlawful under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
This Reconstruction-era law prohibits the president from using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement without explicit congressional approval, aiming to prevent the armed forces from acting as a national police force.
The judge found that Task Force 51, the National Guard unit involved, engaged in prohibited activities such as setting up traffic blockades to assist federal agents and conducting patrols as a “show of force.”
Breyer noted that bystanders and even federal officials struggled to distinguish Guard troops from law enforcement agents, blurring the lines between military support and active policing.
He emphasized the absence of clear threats justifying such measures, questioning, “What’s the threat today?
What was the threat yesterday?
What was the threat last week or two weeks ago?
It’s the absence of any limits to a national police force.”
While the ruling bars the Pentagon from using National Guard members and Marines for police functions like arrests and crowd control, it does not mandate the immediate withdrawal of the remaining several hundred troops still in the city.
Instead, the order is on hold until September 12, 2025, giving the Trump administration time to appeal.
All Marines have since returned to their bases, but the Guard’s presence continues under scrutiny.
Arguments from Both Sides
The Trump administration defended the deployment as essential for protecting federal officers and property amid protests that allegedly blocked immigration agents.
Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the troops’ role was purely protective, stating, “If the purpose is the protection of law enforcement officers, it isn’t law enforcement in the first place.
It’s instead protection.”
Officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, claimed the actions were authorized under presidential powers to quell a “rebellion” and support federal operations.
California countered that no such rebellion existed and that local police could have managed the situation without military intervention.
Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong highlighted the broader impacts, noting “the chilling of economic activity in Los Angeles, including the closure of restaurants, the cancellation of events and people staying home for fear of the military.”
Witnesses like Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman testified that orders aligned with presidential directives but crossed into law enforcement territories.
Implications: A Check on Presidential Power and Future Deployments
This ruling represents a major check on executive authority, with Judge Breyer warning that Trump appeared intent on “creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
It could influence ongoing discussions about military involvement in domestic affairs, especially as Trump considers similar deployments to cities like Chicago to address immigration and crime.
Legal experts suggest the decision reinforces the Posse Comitatus Act’s role in safeguarding civil liberties, potentially setting precedents for future administrations.
As appeals loom, the case highlights deepening divides over immigration policy and federal-state relations in Trump’s second term.
This development comes amid broader national debates on border security and protest rights, with both sides preparing for what could be a protracted legal battle.
Also Read: ICE is Now Recruiting Teens and Seniors in ‘Desperate Attempt’
For customer support or to report typos and corrections please get in contact via media@franknez.com.
About The Author
News Desk 
