Jun 13, 2025 2:11:33 pm
Friday the 13th announced itself with an ominous bang. A Federal Judge in California ruled yesterday that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was illegal. – US District Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California’s request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state’s National Guard.
“He did not,” the judge wrote in his decision. “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued. Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that “the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.
Despite Newsom’s objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them.
NO KING TRUMP: Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point.
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority,” he said. “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”
“At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years.”
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer had said the president acted illegally in dispatching the troops. He wrote that Trump acted improperly, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and ordered him to relinquish control to the governor.
FAR SHORT OF A REBELLION: Breyer’s 36-page ruling on Thursday was a striking broadside against the administration’s approach, with the judge writing that “the continued unlawful militarization” of Los Angeles “inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life.”
He said that while courts treat presidents’ decisions on foreign policy and national security with great deference, this case involves “domestic use of military force, a matter on which the courts can certainly weigh in.”
Contrary to Trump’s assertions, Breyer wrote that the Los Angeles demonstrations “fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” He said the Trump administration identified instances of people acting violently, but not “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”
He also wrote witheringly about the administration’s portrayal of state and local officials being “unable to bring rioters under control.” The judge said it was not up to the federal government “to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws.”
“It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it. It’s a question of a leader — a president or a governor — following the law as set forth in both the Constitution and statutes.”
During a congressional hearing Thursday that focused heavily on the politicization of the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News personality and previously an officer in the Army National Guard, refused to commit to following any future judicial orders that might rein in the administration’s domestic agenda — though later he added, “We’re not here to defy a Supreme Court ruling.”
Neither the Justice Department nor the Pentagon immediately responded to requests for comment after the lower court ruling.
ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE INSURRECTION ACT: California National Guard will remain under federal control after an appeals court late Thursday paused a ruling ordering US President Donald Trump to return control of the force to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it was putting on hold the ruling, issued earlier Thursday by senior US District Judge Charles Breyer, “pending further order.” The appeals court scheduled a hearing in the matter for Tuesday.
Before the appeals court ruling, Jon Michaels, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said he was watching for what comes next. An order may not deter Trump, Michaels said: He might ignore it, or he could invoke the Insurrection Act, as administration officials have suggested in recent days.
Another possibility, Michaels added, would be sharply stepped-up immigration raids that trigger more protests, changing the situation on the ground and providing more justification for military involvement.
“They’re not really looking to de-escalate,” he said of the administration. “This has now become, for better or worse, a signature standoff for Newsom, and I don’t think Trump wants to lose to Gavin Newsom.”
Reporting and analysis – Washington Post, BBC, CNN.