A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the Trump administration to cease the federal deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles and return control to the state of California. The ruling cited a lack of demonstrated justification for the continued federalization and rejected arguments for unchecked presidential power over state troops.
Judicial Ruling
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction to California officials. The ruling mandates that the Trump administration transfer control of the California National Guard troops, which had been under federal command, back to state authority. The order is scheduled to take effect on December 15, providing the administration time to file an appeal. The ruling was initially stayed for a short period to allow for the possibility of an appeal.
Background of Deployment
The federal deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles began in June following protests related to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement actions. The initial deployment involved over 4,000 troops. This number was subsequently reduced, with approximately 300 California National Guard troops remaining under federal control at the time of the ruling, although some reports indicated numbers as low as 100. The administration had sought multiple extensions for this federalization, with the most recent request proposing an extension through February.
Legal Challenges and Arguments
California Governor Gavin Newsom initiated a legal challenge in June following the initial deployment. An initial court of appeals decision had previously sided with the administration, asserting that protests in Los Angeles at that time justified federalization. Governor Newsom filed a new legal challenge in November, arguing that the protests had largely subsided, rendering the continued presence of federalized troops unnecessary. During a recent hearing, legal representatives for the Trump administration stated that the troops should remain in Los Angeles due to ongoing targeting of federal immigration agents.
The Trump administration contended that courts should not intervene in a president's decision to federalize state National Guard troops during an emergency. It also argued that once a state's National Guard is initially federalized, any subsequent extensions should be permitted without further judicial review.
Judge Breyer's Reasoning
Judge Breyer rejected the administration's arguments. He stated that the interpretation allowing unchecked extensions would "permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully." He further ruled that such an interpretation "would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government" and that it contradicts the governmental system of checks and balances. The judge also referenced previous instances where the administration had transferred California's National Guard troops to other states, noting this effectively created a national police force from state resources. Judge Breyer questioned the necessity of the troops remaining in the city months after the initial events, remarking, "I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go."
Administration's Response
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson affirmed that the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was within the president's "lawful authority." She expressed anticipation for a favorable legal outcome on the issue.
Broader Context of Deployments
The deployment in Los Angeles was among several by the Trump administration in various U.S. cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Washington D.C. These deployments have also faced legal challenges from state and local officials, with some resulting in judicial blocks. The administration has generally stated that such deployments are necessary to address civil unrest, support federal immigration initiatives, manage violence in Democratic-controlled cities, combat crime, and safeguard federal immigration facilities and personnel. All 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and several territories maintain their own National Guard contingents. Constitutional law scholars have raised concerns regarding the federalization of various state National Guards, citing implications for executive power.