fbpx

A judge rules the President’s deployment “illegal,” but an appeals court overturns it hours later.

A President or a King?: A Courtroom Showdown Over Constitutional Limits

In a tense courtroom on Thursday, the raw conflict between executive power and judicial review was laid bare. A federal judge, holding up a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, declared President Trumpโ€™s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles to be “illegal.” Hours later, an appeals court put that ruling on hold.

This dizzying sequence of events is more than a legal back-and-forth. It is a real-time, high-stakes demonstration of the American system of checks and balances operating under extreme duress. At its core is a single, foundational question, articulated by the judge himself: What is the difference between a constitutional government and a king?

Police officers and members of the National Guard are deployed outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, US, June 8. [Frederic J Brown/AFP]
Police officers and members of the National Guard are deployed outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, US, June 8. [Frederic J Brown/AFP]

“There is One Commander-in-Chief”

The Trump administrationโ€™s argument, presented by a Justice Department attorney, is one of seemingly absolute authority. When it comes to the nationโ€™s armed forces, the attorney argued, โ€œThere is one commander-in-chief.โ€ This perspective views the National Guard primarily as a federal asset, subject to the Presidentโ€™s will, particularly in a situation the White House has labeled a “rebellion.”

This view presents a streamlined, hierarchical vision of power. It suggests that a governorโ€™s objection is merely advisory and that the Presidentโ€™s determination of a crisis is all that is required to federalize a stateโ€™s own troops. It is a doctrine of centralized authority, one that sees the complexities of federalism as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a principle to be honored. But as the dayโ€™s events would prove, that view would not go unchallenged.

trumps truth social announcement of the appeals court decision screenshot

The Constitution vs. King George

In a dramatic rebuke, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected the administrationโ€™s premise outright. “The president isn’t the commander-in-chief of the National Guard,” he corrected, explaining that the Guard belongs to the states unless called into federal service under the specific laws passed by Congress.

Holding up the Constitution, Judge Breyer stated that the Presidentโ€™s authority is not absolute; it is limited by the very document he swore to uphold. “He did not [follow the law],” Breyer concluded. “His actions were illegal… That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”

Judge Charles R. Breyer
Judge Charles R. Breyerย 

This was not a judge creating policy. It was a judge enforcing the legal guardrails that the legislative branch has placed around executive power. It was a powerful assertion of the judiciaryโ€™s role as a co-equal branch of government, tasked with ensuring that no president, regardless of their perceived mandate, can place themselves above the law.

A Test of Judicial Authority

The tension was further exposed at a congressional hearing, where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was asked if he would comply with Judge Breyer’s order. His response was chilling.

“What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” he stated.

This statement fundamentally misrepresents the role of the judiciary. Judge Breyer was not determining “policy.” He was determining the legality of the administration’s actions based on the laws written by Congress. To frame this as an improper intrusion into national security is to argue that the executive’s actions in that domain are beyond reproach and immune from judicial review. That is a principle of monarchy, not a constitutional republic.

The appeals court has now paused the immediate effect of Judge Breyerโ€™s order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles pending a new hearing. This is not a final victory for either side, but rather an escalation of the conflict to a higher court. The system of appeals is working, but the foundational questions remain unanswered.

This entire episode forces us to confront the core of our system of government:

  • Is the Presidentโ€™s power as commander-in-chief absolute, or is it limited by the laws passed by Congress?
  • Is a federal judge enforcing the law an “activist,” or are they performing their most essential constitutional duty?
  • When the executive branch defies a court order, what is the ultimate guarantee of the rule of law?