Federal Judge Reinstates Control of California National Guard to Governor Newsom

Federal Judge Reinstates Control of California National Guard to Governor Newsom

A federal judge has determined that President Donald Trump acted outside the law by seizing control of California’s National Guard during recent ICE-related protests in Los Angeles. This ruling has significant implications for state and federal authority.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued the decision, supporting Governor Gavin Newsom’s request to regain control of the state’s National Guard. The judge directed Trump to return control of the troops to California without delay.

Breyer’s ruling stated, “His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, he must return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.” This statement underscores the importance of adherence to federalism principles, emphasizing that even the president does not have unlimited power to act unilaterally.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose during a period of heightened tensions, marked by protests against ICE operations that escalated into riots, looting, and confrontations with federal agents in Los Angeles. In response to these events, Trump issued a proclamation invoking federal authority to control the National Guard. However, Judge Breyer swiftly dismissed these justifications as lacking constitutional validity.

In his order, Breyer granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, which aimed to halt federal control of the California National Guard immediately. He stated, “Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.” He further instructed that control be returned to Governor Newsom.

The Legal Implications

As part of the decision, the court imposed a deadline for compliance with the ruling. It established a five-day period for Trump and his administration to relinquish authority. According to the judge’s order, plaintiffs must post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours of the ruling.

Furthermore, the court scheduled a hearing to assess whether the temporary restraining order should transition into a preliminary injunction. Breyer stated, “Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue.” This hearing is set for June 20, 2025, at 10 a.m. and will be crucial in determining the future steps in this legal battle.

Reactions to the Ruling

The ruling has drawn varied responses from political leaders and legal experts. Proponents of state authority praised the judge’s commitment to federalism and upholding constitutional principles. They argue that this decision reinforces the idea that state governors should maintain control over their National Guard units, particularly during times of civil unrest.

Conversely, supporters of President Trump criticized the decision, claiming it undermines federal authority at critical moments when rapid response may be necessary to maintain order. They argue that during periods of significant unrest, federal intervention can provide necessary support to local law enforcement.

Next Steps

As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this case remain significant. Judge Breyer’s order provides an opportunity for states to assert their rights in managing their National Guards, especially when faced with federal interventions during crises. Moreover, this ruling could set a precedent for how future administrations approach similar situations involving state and federal authority.

The White House has yet to respond formally to requests for comments regarding the ruling and its implications. Observers will closely monitor how the administration chooses to proceed in light of this judicial decision.

A Shift in National Security Policy

This ruling may represent a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the appropriate balance of power between state and federal governments during times of crisis. Legal analysts suggest that the decision could lead to further challenges concerning the use of National Guard units across the United States, especially in politically charged environments.

Ultimately, this case will likely force lawmakers to reevaluate the legal frameworks governing the deployment of the National Guard and federal intervention in states’ affairs. The outcome may also influence future legislative actions aimed at clarifying the responsibilities and powers attributed to both state and federal governments.

As the hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the courtroom, where the judge will hear arguments regarding the necessity of maintaining federal control versus the urgent need for state autonomy in managing local crises.