Federal Judge BLOCKS Trump’s Guard Plan – What’s Next?

A federal judge blocks Trump’s National Guard deployment in Los Angeles, raising critical questions about executive power and state sovereignty.

Story Snapshot

Judge Charles R. Breyer halts the deployment of California National Guard in Los Angeles.
Trump’s use of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 deemed unlawful for immigration-related operations.
Legal battle highlights federalism and separation of powers issues.
Potential appeal to the Ninth Circuit could further shape the outcome.

Federalization Under Scrutiny

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s federalization of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. The decision came after the administration’s reliance on 10 U.S.C. § 12406 was found not to meet statutory prerequisites. The order is temporarily stayed, allowing the Department of Justice time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

This ruling reflects a broader judicial pushback against the use of state troops for federal immigration enforcement, emphasizing constitutional limits on presidential power. Breyer’s decision is the second attempt to halt the deployment after a prior temporary restraining order was stayed by the Ninth Circuit.

Implications for Federal and State Authority

The case underscores the tension between federal executive authority and state control of National Guard units. By invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406, Trump sought to address protests against immigration raids, which were perceived as violent by his administration. However, Judge Breyer warned that this approach risked creating a “national police force” and violated the principles of federalism.

California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenged the federalization, arguing it infringed upon state sovereignty. The legal battle highlights ongoing debates over the scope of presidential power and the role of federal courts in reviewing such executive actions.

Future Legal and Political Developments

With the preliminary injunction issued but stayed, the legal status of the National Guard deployment remains uncertain. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the case to the Supreme Court. The outcome could have significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly regarding the use of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement.

As the legal proceedings continue, the situation in Los Angeles serves as a focal point for broader discussions about immigration policy, law enforcement, and executive authority. The decision may also influence similar cases in other states, such as Oregon and Illinois, where federalized Guard deployments have faced judicial resistance.