LOS ANGELES — JUNE 2025
California filed a major lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. The case followed his order to seize control of the California National Guard. He sent in thousands of troops during large-scale protests across Los Angeles.
The protests erupted after federal immigration raids shook local communities. Marchers filled the streets in cities and neighborhoods. Most stayed peaceful. A few turned tense.
Trump responded with military force. He said the Guard would restore order. His administration called it a national emergency.Governor Gavin Newsom rejected the order. He said it violated the Constitution. His office filed suit just one day after the troops arrived.
The legal battle moved fast. At the center stood a single question. Can the president take over state troops without the governor’s consent?
The answer could reset the balance between federal and state power. The case tests the limits of military force on U.S. soil. It raises questions about civil liberties, state rights, and presidential control.
Courts must now decide. The public waits. The outcome could shape how America handles unrest for years to come.
How the Conflict Started
Protests broke out in Los Angeles after federal immigration raids. Crowds filled the streets. Most protests stayed peaceful. A few turned tense.
Trump responded on June 8. He federalized 4,000 California National Guard troops. He also deployed 700 U.S. Marines. Troops appeared on street corners. They helped block roads and ran security points.
Governor Gavin Newsom objected. He called the move illegal. On June 9, his office filed a lawsuit in federal court.
What the Law Says
Trump’s legal team pointed to 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and § 252. These federal laws allow the president to take control of a state’s National Guard. The law applies during rebellion, invasion, or when normal enforcement fails.
The administration said Los Angeles faced serious unrest. Officials claimed the protests created chaos. They said local authorities could not restore order. They argued that the federal government had to act.
According to Trump’s legal team, the law gave him full authority. They said he had the right to federalize the Guard. They described the move as lawful and necessary.
California saw it differently. The state said the protests did not meet the standard of rebellion. Officials confirmed that police remained in control. They said no emergency required outside force.
Governor Gavin Newsom rejected the federal order. He said the law did not apply. He argued that Trump misused emergency powers. He accused the former president of bypassing state authority.
State lawyers said the order broke the legal balance between Washington and Sacramento. They claimed it set a dangerous example. They warned that future presidents could abuse the same powers in less urgent cases.
This part of the case turns on one key issue. Did Trump follow the law—or stretch it beyond its limits?
Courts must now decide what counts as a true emergency. They must define when a president can step into a state’s command. The answer will set a legal standard that future leaders must follow.
The Role of the Posse Comitatus Act
The Posse Comitatus Act blocks the military from acting as police inside the U.S. The law dates back to 1878. It protects civilian life from military enforcement.
California said federalized Guard troops crossed the line. They assisted in detentions and raids. Marines joined operations on the ground.
The Justice Department denied any violation. Officials said troops supported local agencies. They said soldiers did not take command of police duties.
Tenth Amendment at the Center
The Tenth Amendment protects state power. California used this to argue that Trump ignored state rights. The governor claimed the president cannot seize control of the Guard without consent.
Trump’s team cited a 1990 Supreme Court case: Perpich v. Department of Defense. That ruling confirmed the president’s authority over the Guard under federal command.
The First Court Ruling
Judge Charles Breyer handled the case in federal court. He moved fast. On June 12, he issued a temporary restraining order. The order limited the Guard’s operations.
Days later, Judge Breyer ruled that Trump’s actions broke federal law. He said troops were used in active police roles. He also said the president overstepped the Constitution.
Appeals Court Blocks the Ruling
Trump’s team appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the lower court’s order. The decision let Trump keep control of the Guard for now.
The panel said Trump may have acted within the law. But the judges also noted that presidential power has limits.
The August Trial
The case returned to court in August. A three-day bench trial took place in San Francisco. Both sides presented evidence and testimony.
DOJ arguments:
Trump’s lawyers said the protests created chaos. They claimed the Guard helped protect public safety. They denied any violations.
California’s case:
The state submitted video and sworn statements. Guard troops operated checkpoints. Marines joined arrests. Officials argued this was law enforcement—not support.
Broader Impact
This lawsuit may decide how presidents use troops inside the country. It tests how far executive power can reach.
What Experts Say
Legal scholars called the case a test of constitutional balance. Some pointed to older rulings like Sterling v. Constantin. That case confirmed that even in emergencies, courts can check the president.
Military voices warned of long-term effects. They said using the Guard in political disputes could damage trust. They warned that blurred roles may weaken morale.
Civil rights groups raised alarms. They said soldiers should not police protests. They claimed the deployment silenced free speech.
What the Case Means for America
This case affects more than California. It could change how every state handles military control. Courts must decide if a president can take a state’s Guard without permission.
A ruling in California’s favor would protect state power. It would block future presidents from using troops without the governor’s approval. That outcome would support the Tenth Amendment. It would keep the Guard tied to its state leadership during domestic situations.
A ruling in Trump’s favor would expand federal control. It would give presidents more freedom to send troops into cities. That move could shift power away from states. It could make federal deployment easier during unrest.
This legal battle is not just about protests. It is about control. It tests who commands the Guard during national tension.
The National Guard plays two roles. It serves local needs and supports national defense. This case asks which role comes first in a crisis.
A decision here will draw a new line. That line will show how much freedom presidents have to act without consent. It will show how far federal power can reach inside state borders.
The outcome will shape how the country handles emergencies. It will define how America separates military power from civilian life.
This case stands at a crossroad. One path strengthens state rights. The other path increases federal force in domestic affairs.