A federal judge on Tuesday rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency motion to halt President Trump’s deployment of U.S. military forces in Los Angeles, escalating a dramatic standoff between state and federal authority over immigration enforcement and public protest response.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, overseeing the case in the Northern District of California, declined to issue an immediate restraining order that would have barred the Trump administration from continuing its deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard troops—now federalized—and 700 active-duty Marines. The forces were sent into the city following a surge of protests in response to a series of aggressive immigration raids.
While the emergency request was denied, Judge Breyer granted the administration additional time to respond formally to the lawsuit brought by Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. A full hearing on the matter is scheduled for Thursday.
State Rights vs. Federal Might
At the heart of this legal clash is a question older than the republic itself: where does federal authority end and state sovereignty begin?
Newsom’s lawsuit argues that Trump’s use of Title 10 authority—which allows the president to federalize National Guard troops—violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government to the states.
“The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens,”
Newsom said in a statement. “Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy. Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a president.”
The lawsuit names President Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense as defendants, and asserts that the administration is improperly using military personnel to enforce domestic immigration policy—an area traditionally limited to federal civilian agencies and, in California’s case, heavily opposed by the state government.
Protest, Immigration, and the Triggering Events
The conflict was sparked by large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids conducted across Los Angeles and its suburbs on June 6. Though ICE described the raids as targeted and legal, images of families being separated and widespread detentions fueled outrage.
By June 7, protests erupted across the city. Though initially peaceful, demonstrations turned tense as crowds clashed with local law enforcement.
By June 9, federal buildings had been vandalized, flags burned, and ICE agents confronted by demonstrators. That evening, Trump signed a memorandum authorizing the deployment of federal forces “to restore order, protect agents, and defend federal property.”
Critics of the president argue that his move is not only a dangerous precedent, but part of a broader strategy to undermine dissent and centralize federal control in the face of political opposition from Democratic-led states.
Legal and Constitutional Precedents
Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president may assume control of a state’s National Guard in cases of national emergency. Trump has invoked this authority before, but typically in cooperation with governors—not in defiance of them.
Legal scholars note that while the president has broad leeway under the Insurrection Act and other emergency statutes, the Constitution places deliberate limits on the use of the military in domestic affairs. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, for example, forbids the use of federal troops to enforce domestic laws without explicit congressional authorization.
California’s suit argues that Trump’s order violates both the Posse Comitatus Act and the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. The administration counters that immigration enforcement and protection of federal property fall squarely within federal jurisdiction.
What’s at Stake
For California, this isn’t just about policy differences—it’s about constitutional order. Newsom’s camp sees this as a dangerous expansion of federal power into state affairs, particularly as the military presence is used in tandem with immigration raids that many in the state consider unlawful or inhumane.
For Trump, the moment offers a chance to reinforce a law-and-order image and showcase his commitment to strict immigration enforcement—particularly as the election season heats up.
The court’s ruling Thursday will likely determine whether Trump’s deployment stands or whether federal authority over state-based military resources can be reined in. But whatever the outcome, this moment may be remembered as a critical test of constitutional limits in the modern era.
A Nation on Edge
As federal troops fan out across Los Angeles and state leaders prepare their next legal move, the broader American public is once again confronted with questions about protest, patriotism, and presidential power.
Is this a legitimate effort to restore order—or a constitutional power grab cloaked in red, white, and blue? Are we witnessing the defense of American sovereignty—or its distortion?
This is more than a political standoff. It’s a defining moment in the ever-unfinished story of who governs whom in the United States—and under whose authority. Thursday’s hearing may not answer every question, but it will help draw the line between strength and overreach.