A US federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump from continuing to control California’s National Guard, delivering a major legal setback to the administration’s use of state troops to respond to immigration-related protests.
In a ruling issued last week, US District Judge Charles Breyer ordered that National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles earlier this year be returned to the authority of California Governor Gavin Newsom, finding that the Trump administration failed to justify federal takeover of the force.
Background to the Dispute
In June, President Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles following protests triggered by intensified federal immigration raids. The administration argued the move was necessary to protect federal agents and property.
Under US law, the president may federalise state National Guard units during national emergencies. However, Judge Breyer ruled that the administration did not meet the legal threshold required to override state authority.
“The administration has not shown that the protests in Los Angeles justified taking federal control of California’s National Guard,” Breyer wrote.
Court Rejects Broad Presidential Authority Claim
The Trump administration had argued that courts should not interfere with a president’s decision to federalise the Guard during an emergency. Judge Breyer firmly rejected that position.
“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances,” he wrote. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”
Breyer also criticised what he described as a broader pattern of behaviour, warning that the administration was “effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops” by deploying National Guard units across multiple states.
Troops Still Under Federal Control—For Now
While issuing the order, the judge delayed its effect until December 15, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal. Approximately 300 California National Guard troops remain under federal control six months after being federalised.
The White House signalled it would challenge the ruling.
“President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”
Governor Newsom’s Legal Fight
Governor Gavin Newsom sued shortly after the initial deployment, arguing that Trump’s move violated state sovereignty. While an appeals court initially sided with the administration, Newsom filed a new legal challenge in November, citing the decline of protests and questioning the continued presence of troops.
During recent hearings, administration lawyers argued that federal immigration agents in Los Angeles were still being targeted. Judge Breyer, however, appeared unconvinced.
“I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go,” he said, according to the Associated Press.
Wider Implications
The ruling adds to a growing list of legal challenges facing Trump’s aggressive use of the National Guard in cities including Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC—deployments that have also been contested and, in some cases, blocked by courts.
All 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and several territories maintain their own National Guard units, traditionally controlled by governors unless lawfully federalised.
For constitutional scholars, the case underscores a central tension in American governance: how far presidential emergency powers extend when weighed against state authority and judicial oversight.
As the appeals process unfolds, the decision is likely to shape future debates over federal power, civil unrest, and the limits of executive authority in the United States.
