by Jacob Fischler, Georgia Recorder
June 12, 2025

A federal judge in California late Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to relinquish command of 4,000 National Guard troops the president called to help contain Los Angeles protests over immigration raids.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard was illegal, and ordered the return of control to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had opposed the deployment. He said his order would go into effect noon Pacific time Friday, likely setting up an emergency appeal by the administration.

Trump’s “actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

He issued the 36-page order mere hours after an afternoon hearing at which he appeared skeptical that Trump’s order was lawful.

Breyer at the hearing appeared not to accept the Trump administration’s argument that obtaining consent from Newsom, a Democrat, was not a prerequisite to federalize the California National Guard.

Newsom has been backed up by Democratic attorneys general across the nation in the closely watched case.

Breyer noted the law Trump cited when mobilizing the troops requires the order to go through a state’s governor, but Trump’s order bypassed Newsom and went directly to the adjutant general of the California National Guard.

“I’m trying to figure out how something is through somebody if, in fact, you didn’t give it to him, you actually sent it to the adjutant general,” Breyer said. “It would be the first time I’ve ever seen something going through somebody if it never went to them directly.”

‘A constitutional government and King George’

U.S. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, who argued for the administration, said Newsom’s approval was not necessary for the commander-in-chief to call National Guard troops into service.

“There’s no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,” he said. “The governor is merely a conduit. He’s not a roadblock. The president doesn’t have to call up the governor, invite them to Camp David, ‘Let’s have a summit, negotiate for a week about what are the terms that we’re going to call up the National Guard in your state, what are the terms of the deployment?’”

The president alone can determine whether the conditions allowing for the federalization of the National Guard are met, Shumate said.

But Breyer, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the president faced more limits on his authority than Shumate had argued.

“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said.

Nicholas Green, who argued on behalf of the state, called the federal government’s argument “breathtaking in scope,” in part because the troops appear to be assisting in domestic law enforcement.

“They are saying, Your Honor, that the president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives that there is disobedience to an order,” Green told Breyer. “That is an expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power.”

Breyer seemed less opposed to Trump’s order to deploy 700 U.S. Marines to the area, noting those troops are not yet on the ground in Los Angeles and, as federal troops, were already under Trump’s command without needing to satisfy any other criteria.

Breyer’s order Thursday night did not direct any action regarding the Marines.

Pause requested

The judge, who is the brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said he would rule quickly, possibly late Thursday, on California’s request for a restraining order to stop the deployment in Los Angeles.

Shuman requested that, if Breyer found in favor of the state, he should pause any restraining order while the federal government appeals.

Green said the state would “strongly oppose” such a pause because of the urgency of the situation in Los Angeles.

The city has seen days of protests starting on Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on workplaces. Trump ordered the National Guard to the area on Sunday, saying it was necessary to restore order.

Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass objected to the decision and have said it has caused more chaos and inflamed tensions.

Democrats’ amicus brief

The hearing on California’s request for an injunction came a day after 21 Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governor of Kansas filed an amicus brief in the case backing up California.

Trump wresting control of a state National Guard sets a dangerous precedent that undermines National Guard missions, they said.

“National Guard troops fight fires, respond to hurricanes, protect their residents from flooding, and provide much-needed security,” they wrote. “By undermining states’ authority, unlawfully deploying the National Guard troops, and leaving the door wide open to deploy the Guards of every state, the President has made us all less safe. This Court should enjoin the federal government from continuing down this unlawful and perilous path.”

In addition to Kansas Gov. Laura Kelley, the attorneys general of Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island signed the brief.

Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jill Nolin for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.

The post Judge says Trump takeover of California National Guard ‘illegal,’ orders return to governor appeared first on georgiarecorder.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a factual recounting of a legal conflict between the Trump administration and Democratic officials over the deployment of National Guard troops during immigration protests in Los Angeles. The inclusion of detailed court arguments, references to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic attorneys general, and critical quotes regarding presidential overreach subtly highlight constitutional limits on executive power and support state authority, reflecting a perspective that leans slightly left. However, the article maintains a largely balanced tone by presenting both sides’ legal arguments without overt editorializing, anchoring it close to the center but with a modest left-leaning inclination.