Judge Rules Trump Illegally Ordered National Guard to Los Angeles
The injunction is stayed until September 12.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration violated the Posse Comitatus (“Power of the Country”) Act when it ordered the National Guard to Los Angeles, CA.
The stay expires on September 12. (Yes, I accidentally wrote injunction earlier. My bad.)
Trump cited 10 U.S.C. § 12406 as the legal authority that allows him to deploy the National Guard.
Nearly 140 years later, Defendants—President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and the Department of Defense—deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced. There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.
Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, preventing the government from using the military to enforce domestic law.
Breyer said Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth should “have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country—including Oakland and San Francisco, here in the Northern District of California—thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
The ruling only affects California.
“Because there is an ongoing risk that Defendants will act unlawfully and thereby injure Plaintiffs, Governor Newsom and the State of California, the Court ENJOINS Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act as detailed below,” declared Breyer.
The government placed 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines “under the control of Task Force 51, U.S. Army North’s deployable contingency command post.”
Breyer laid out all of the evidence to support his decision, concluding that the trial’s evidence “established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”
In footnote 22 on page 41, Breyer admonished the administration’s justification to use military force to protect federal property, finding it “unlikely as a descriptive matter to execute federal laws in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.”
I also raised my eyebrow at footnote 21 on page 41. Breyer admitted that Los Angeles faced large protests, some of which were violent. However, the police department “is no stranger to such protests,” mentioning BLM protests and rambunctious crowds after a major league team wins a championship.”
One part stuck out to me:
Second, though courts have not yet squarely faced the issue of a President using the military domestically in violation of federal law, the Supreme Court has clarified that the courts are not powerless to stop such executive overreach.
Hhhmm…okay, so, the actual issue has never gone through the courts?
Breyer cited Laird v. Tatum, which challenged President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision to deploy federal troops to help with surveillance after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated under the Insurrection Act.
Perhaps I’m too tired after Rocklahoma, but I would think Breyer would have chosen a case that involved the Posse Comitatus Act, such as United States v. Banks. The case involved an “investigating NCIS Agent who orchestrated local law enforcement’s involvement, and was found to have illegally done the same in the past, clearly rendering the search and seizure of Gentles’ property at his home illegal.”
Perhaps I’m overthinking it.
Either way, I guarantee that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear the case.
In June, Breyer ruled that Trump’s order violated the 10th Amendment and exceeded his statutory authority.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused Breyer’s order, ruling that “the president had broad, though not ‘unreviewable,’ authority to deploy the military in American cities.”
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It would be nice to have judges again and not activist.
Her ice cream probably has locust beans… 🙂
Ignore the judge. She is an idiot leftist activist.
Sorry… “he.”
But that is open for discussion under today’s rules.
Governments only job is to protect you. When they fail you need to replace them.
Declaration of Independence – the government’s job is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Seems like the same judges getting all these cases??
ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced
Well, no, he didn’t use them to “quell a rebellion.” The only use for them was protecting federal buildings and federal agents in the performance of their duty.
nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law
Well, you’re right that they were not unable. They were unwilling, and demonstrated it. Which is why the federal agents had to have some help protecting their buildings (which were being attacked – that sounds a lot like sedition or rebellion) and their agents.
The entire ruling seems to be a deliberate misreading of the facts in the case. This judge needs to be slapped down.
Not even unwilling, so much as under orders not to.
Which is “unwilling” as far as the command structure goes.
I live in Crook County, IL.
Gov Toilets claims Chicago is safe.
Well, this morning, a trucker was shot on an expressway.
https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-area-traffic-shooting-investigation-closes-ib-lanes-eisenhower-expressway-west-side/17719972/
Only the insane would refuse help to reduce crime.
And the DemoncRats are insane
If you watch the local leftist media, all the programs open with Six Ton Pritzker and Chicago’s mayor Johnson lying about how crime is down and everything’s great—immediately followed by a string of stories on murders, rapes, car jackings, shootings, smash and grabs, etc. The Chicago Contrarian (www.chicagocontrarian.com) published a brilliant rejoinder to the lies that included “Only in Chicago politics could cutting murder down from apocalyptic to merely catastrophic be presented as progress.”
and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
Except those two things are not the same. Posse Comitatus doesn’t cover protecting federal buildings and federal gents, I’m pretty sure. Also, pretty sure when you’re having to protect those, it’s pretty much rebellion. (Though, arguably, there was invasion in there, too, since a bunch of the folks attacking the feds were foreigners flying their country’s flag. ALSO no Posse Comitatus.)
I don’t get why refusing to cooperate with the federal government on border and immigration enforcement isn’t de facto rebellion. The Democrats got the courts to say states can’t enforce federal immigration law — will the courts next decide the feds can’t enforce it without permission from the state?
Exercising a constitutional right is not rebellion.
No one, including Breyer, is saying the feds can’t enforce it. He’s saying they can’t use the armed forces to do so, because Congress banned that after Reconstruction, as a concession to the South.
“ Exercising a constitutional right is not rebellion.”
I believe that right is spelled out as a “peaceful protest”
No, it isn’t. It’s called the tenth amendment.
The PC Act is not well understood by a lot of people. They often wrongly interpret it to mean “no use of the military in the US for anything.” As usual, they are wrong. This came up more than once post 9/11.
Indeed. Also a lot of people seem to think it’s a constitutional principle, rather than a concession Congress made to the South. After the disaster of the 1876 presidential election, Rutherford Hayes made a deal with the South that in return for their letting his victory stand he would end Reconstruction and introduce reconciliation instead. Part of that reconciliation was the Posse Comitatus Act, so presidents could no longer use the army to protect southern black people’s civil liberties.
The act is a codification of a constitutional principal, which shouldn’t be that controversial; the federal military has no power to enforce local law.
No, it is not. There was no such principle before 1878.
And it’s not limited to local law. The army is prohibited from enforcing any law, including federal ones. There’s nothing in the constitution that requires that. It was a concession to the South.
Therefore it was already a constitutional principle based on a plain reading. The ACT only codified what was already unconstitutional to use military as law enforcement.
Posse Comitatus was largely motivated by the US Army effectively taking kn the Democrats’ militant wing, the KKK. Around the same time Congress restricted the Secret Service to treasury crimes, because they had infiltrated the Klan and were bird-dogging Klan violence for the Army.
It’s no shock that it’s being used again to defend their current militant wing(s). Want to bet the Democrats and GOPe decide to restrict the authority of ICE to enforce immigration laws?
Stephen Wonders bro – so seems like anyone could see this coming
Actually not. Charles has had a sterling reputation for honesty and sticking to the law. His handling of this case doesn’t seem consistent with that reputation.
now would be the appropriate time to invoke:
I can see russia from my backyard
by the good citizens of LA Oakland etc
b/c the communist front is 1000% there
when all ethical means to stop crime are thwarted
the bad guys are shoving it back in your faces saying
what are you going to do about it
we outnumber you
we out arm you
there is no help on the way
they are coming for us..in bits and pieces and any differing pov to that is met with the …conspiracy theory rhetoric etc
but its here and its happening
blmplo PROVED that you can pretend to do peaceful protests knowing that they will move into a less than peaceful protest
10 U. S. Code 12406, (2), states, “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; …
Two questions:
— who decides that there is a ‘danger of a rebellion’? Is that not the President? Does the law allow his determination to be second-guessed? If so, what are the standards for that — mere disagreement by a district court judge?
— if state/local authorities have previously stated that they will not cooperate with the protection of Federal property (not arresting illegals, that’s a different but related matter), who else can the President call on to protect said property? If destruction of, or threat of destruction of, federal property is not sufficient, what is?
More like (3) (Whenever) the President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States
The President may call into Federal service members and units of the NG of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to….execute those laws.
The main point is this is a discretionary power of POTUS. If he can choose how much of the NG to activate into Federal Service to meet the situation then the discretion of whether a ‘situation’ exists is up to the POTUS. Especially considering there’s no sort of prior consent needed to act, not even in consultation with Congress or with Governors, other than routing of orders through their State Military Dept.
It is a separate argument if Congress was wise to grant such discretionary authority and power to POTUS or if we agree/disagree with a particular decision to exercise the power but that’s IMO not subject to judicial interference. Had Congress wished they could have chosen to limit the number of NG troops or required Congressional review/approval prior to use. The POTUS is also ultimately the Commander of the Militia and the NG is the organized militia.
As a general matter, yes, the president would make the initial determination, but the courts would be expected to review it when someone sues.
It’s just like any law that says “If A happens, the president may do B”. The president declares “A has just happened, so I am now doing B”, someone sues, and a judge decides whether A has really happened or the president is just making it up.
It’s very rare for the president to have the unreviewable authority to determine that the trigger event Congress provided has occurred. Because if he can do that what’s to stop him from lying? Congress made the condition for a reason, and expects the courts to enforce it. He can only do B if A has happened, and not if it hasn’t.
This is not a comment on the specific case we’re discussing here, just about the general principle. In this case I think it’s pretty obvious that A did happen, so the president has properly done B.
“It’s very rare for the president to have the unreviewable authority to determine that the trigger event Congress provided has occurred. Because if he can do that what’s to stop him from lying? Congress made the condition for a reason, and expects the courts to enforce it. He can only do B if A has happened, and not if it hasn’t.”
This presumes the courts haven’t be compromised by elements hostile to the United States and its Constitution. What if they have been?
Indeed. Who’s to say a Judge wouldn’t put their policy preferences or political ideology above the facts and lie themselves? At least with a President there’s the ultimate check and balance of electoral vengeance by We the People. In contrast to an unelected Federal judge for whom the ultimate check and balance by We the People wouldn’t involve an election.
The underlying assumption of the entire constitution is that they won’t be.
No the courts do not have the power or jurisdiction to second guess or overrule the President in this case. Congress has the power, if the governor of CA thought the President was incorrect in this case then he should have prevailed on his states senators and congressmen to have congress overrule the President.
That generally answers my question, but of course the next question is the threshold — what standard must a judge apply? Because if it’s just ‘reasonable’, a judge could choose the plaintiff’s reason and not what Congress and the people want.
I agree and frankly, I think that the legal review of the President’s orders in such matters is actually one of the purposes for the Judicial Branch’s co-equal status. I admit that I think that in this case (and in many, many cases in 2025) the court -at this level- is wrong and has exceeded its authority. However, the fact that the much of the Court is behaving poorly recently is not enough for me to be willing to attempt to remove their authority to review for constitutionality.
I would like to see the Congress become more aggressive in removing Judges who are consistently over-ruled by superior courts. This seems to be a major weakness in the balance between the co-equal divisions of the system
I don’t think Congress can remove a judge merely for making wrong decisions. It can only remove them for bad conduct, which means things they’ve done, not decisions they’ve made.
It’s generally accepted that this principle was established by Samuel Chase’s acquittal. The senate’s vote to acquit was seen as a rebuke of the House for having improvidently impeached him in the first place, and the House took the lesson not to do that again.
Otherwise you don’t have judicial independence, which is a fundamental principle underlying the constitution.
Assemble a National Guard unit. Swear them all in as special US Marshals.* Then employ them in that capacity to protect federal properties within the State, taking orders from the US Marshals Service rather than from a military chain of command.
*According to Google AI, a special US Marshal is “an individual temporarily appointed with federal law enforcement authority for a specific mission.”
Image if you will
Someone so ignorant and dumb to be protesting against safer streets and less crime!
I am continually fascinated by the spectacle of judges who would prefer to be wrong – and rightly overturned – than admit that President Trump is right about something.
It would be nice if there was some way to remove these cretins from the bench. Even a couple month suspension (without pay!) would be better than the current system.
There are judicial conduct commissions. But they often don’t do their job.
“The injunction expires on September 12.”
NO!!
The injunction is STAYED until noon on September 12. This gives the Trump administration an opportunity to get the 9th Circuit to consider issuing a further stay of the injunction.
Exactly.
“The Court STAYS this injunction until 12:00 noon on Friday, September 12, 2025.”
In all caps and bolded.
That’s three careless errors in this post. Two of which are significant.
It seems to me that a bunch of people in masks rioting in the streets, looting store, burning property and attacking people while waving foreign flags sure sounds like rebellion. If the local or state refuses to stop it then the Feds have to step in to protect the citizens. It’s one of their few jobs.
If the local or state refuses to stop it then the Feds have to step in to protect the citizens.
To me, this would seem to also necessitate removing the enabling or inadequate politicians.
It’s only rebellion if it has the goal of overthrowing the USA, not if the goal is simply violence and looting for its own sake.
So in my opinion many or most of the BLM riots would not count as rebellions. The one in Portland certainly did. The original one in Minneapolis where they burned down the police station probably counts as one too. CHAZ certainly counts. J6 certainly does not.
I think the current anti-ICE protests, both peaceful and criminal, do count as rebellion, though of course the peaceful ones are lawful rebellion, protected by the first amendment. But the violent ones are of course unlawful, and it seems to me that they are insurrection.
why only the federal government? ( you said overthrowing the usa)
the /a rebellion to upset takeover etc a local government is still a rebellion
and since the rioters want to affect the political system that is directly against the federal government ,,who are the trouble makers, according to the rebels
Why only the federal government? Because we’re talking about sending in federal troops. It’s not the army’s job to put down a rebellion against a state government. Let the governor put it down with the forces available to him, if he can.
Cf the Rhode Island rebellion, where the feds stayed strictly out of it.
Here I agree with you — CHAZ and the violent anti-ICE protests are insurrection, whereas peaceful protest and J6 certainly are not. I think we’d have to disagree about most of the BLM riots knowing what we know today about how these were instigated and funded. But knowing that and proving it in a legal/constitutional forum are two different things.
s/Country/County
s/should//
These same groups won’t be taking the government to court when troops are sent in for the the 2026 World Cup matches and the 2028 Olympics
if we cant bring the help to the cities
maybe we can just deport the troublemakers to other countries
turnabout is fair play
“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”
Lawfare fail. Appeal to SCOTUS for the win.
they let her go:
she allegedly put her arms out “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.” Velez’s arm hit the officer’s face.
https://upolitics.com/news/u-s-citizen-arrested-by-ice-held-without-being-given-water-for-24-hours-during-l-a-protests-has-her-case-dimissed/
She was “given nothing to drink for 24 hours”. I have no idea which facility she was held at, or what the conditions there are, but I point out that a standard cell pretty much everywhere has a sink and toilet. Now it’s true that they don’t provide cups, often refusing even when the prisoner asks for one, so the only way to drink from the sink is with your hands, but the water is there and drinkable.
And of course the fact that she’s a citizen is irrelevant. You don’t get let off crimes just because you’re a citizen.
But it could be that they reviewed the footage and found that she may have stuck her arms out inadvertently, without any intent of hitting the officer or obstructing him, and he ran into her hand. Or at least that that’s how a defense attorney could portray it and a jury might not be convinced that she’s guilty, so it’s not worth prosecuting her.
Are you arguing an assault or a penalty kick in the Premier League?
Did the judge review JFK’s Executive Order 11111? A governor ways down South had this thing about not letting kids of a certain skin color into the University of Alabama….
So, Mr. Trump. we see that once again you have insulted the judicial sensibilities of an inferior federal court bench warmer whose jurisdiction shall not be limited your flimsy excuse of Article II executive authority!
The judge is a partisan hack. To reach his decision he had to ignore that the federal agents were under attack and local leaders refused to allow their police to protect the Feds. The National Guard is not performing law enforcement activities, they are protecting the agents performing them.
Unfortunately this judge is not a partisan hack. Which is why it’s surprising and disappointing that in this case he seems to be acting like one. This is not what he’s usually like.
This baloney will be overturned posthaste.
I don’t understand how Trump’s invocation of the AEA is at all reviewable by the courts. The law gives the president the authority to decide when a illegal incursion has occurred. And only the president. The law doesn’t say the president gets his authority when he declares an illegal incursion and the courts agree. It says nothing about the courts.
The people of the United States elected the president to make that determination, not the courts. Trump should say the courts have no authority to agree or disagree with the president’s decision. No one elected the judges, the elected the president. He gets to make the decision, not the courts.
What am I missing?
Really? Where does it do that?