LOS ANGELES — A federal judge has ordered the immediate withdrawal of National Guard troops deployed by the Trump administration to assist in domestic policing efforts, a significant legal setback for the president’s controversial actions aimed at controlling protests and unrest across the nation.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that command of the approximately 300 federalized National Guard members must revert to California Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision follows a lawsuit that Newsom filed in June, challenging the federal government’s takeover of state troops amid protests related to immigration enforcement. Breyer had previously deemed the deployment illegal, though that ruling was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the administration’s authority under a less-known statute.
The 9th Circuit had determined that the president held substantial discretion to decide when federal intervention was warranted, as claimed by the Justice Department during the protests in Los Angeles. A similar situation unfolded recently in Oregon, where federal troops were mobilized to confront unrest. However, the legality of that deployment was called into question and is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit.
In his most recent ruling, Breyer expressed concerns over the potential misuse of presidential authority concerning military deployment. He emphasized that while states are entitled to federal protection, they also require safeguards against overreach by the federal government. Judge Jay Bybee, in a separate filing, highlighted the need for evidence to justify troop deployments in domestic matters, warning against undermining state sovereignty.
The 9th Circuit, historically recognized as one of the most liberal appellate courts, has faced internal discord following Trump’s appointment of conservative judges. Legal experts believe this tension could influence future decisions regarding presidential powers in domestic military matters. Just last month, the Supreme Court urged both the Trump administration and the state of Illinois to address whether the president could federalize the National Guard without first deploying active-duty military forces.
Critics argue that a ruling favoring such an interpretation could significantly alter the balance of military power within the United States. Legal scholars warn that allowing more expansive military action could lead to further militarization of domestic law enforcement, escalating tensions during an already politically charged environment.
Congressional scrutiny of the administration’s troop deployments is also intensifying. The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to gather testimony from military leaders regarding the implications of repeated domestic deployments. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a vocal critic of the president’s approach, has expressed concern over the impact on military personnel and civil rights.
California officials welcomed Breyer’s decision as a pivotal moment in the struggle to regulate the president’s military actions. Newsom emphasized the need to return National Guard members to their essential public safety roles within their communities. Attorney General Rob Bonta labeled the ruling a significant affirmation of democratic principles and the rule of law.
Despite the legal victory, experts caution against complacency, noting that the continued deployment of troops in urban areas might be normalized, increasing the risk of misuse in future conflicts. The ongoing legal battles and the military’s involvement in domestic affairs raise troubling questions about the boundaries of federal authority and civilian protections in the United States.