New Delhi, Jun 13: A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s controversial deployment of the California National Guard to Los Angeles, declaring the move illegal and ordering that authority over the troops be returned to Governor Gavin Newsom. The ruling, however, has been temporarily stayed until Friday afternoon, pending an appeal by the federal government. The dispute arose after President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid ongoing protests against his administration’s immigration crackdown.
The federal order bypassed the usual protocol of obtaining a state governor’s consent before activating National Guard units. The administration argued the deployment was necessary to restore order and ensure the safety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents operating in the area.
State authorities, including Governor Newsom, objected to the intervention, asserting that local law enforcement was managing the protests effectively and that the situation did not warrant federal military involvement. California filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the legality of the president’s actions.
The protests began earlier this week following reports of intensified immigration raids across Southern California, with demonstrators rallying against what they described as the militarisation of immigration enforcement and racial profiling. Downtown Los Angeles has seen clashes between protesters and law enforcement, leading to more than 300 arrests. A citywide curfew remains in effect for the third consecutive night, as officials work to prevent further unrest and maintain public safety.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority by seizing control of California’s National Guard without the governor’s approval. He stated that the law requires compliance with conditions laid out by Congress when federalizing state troops—a requirement the administration failed to meet.
The Trump administration has invoked a federal statute allowing the president to call up the National Guard in cases of rebellion or extreme civil unrest. However, California argued that the recent demonstrations, which included a temporary shutdown of a major freeway, did not amount to an insurrection or rebellion and therefore did not justify the president’s emergency powers.
The ruling emphasized the constitutional limits of presidential authority over the National Guard, distinguishing between routine military command and exceptional federal interventions. The judge referenced the historical precedent that National Guard units typically operate under state command and are activated federally only in cases of national emergencies with clear legal justification.
While the order returns command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom, the stay allows federal control to continue temporarily, giving the Trump administration time to pursue legal recourse through higher courts. This marks the first instance in over five decades where a president has deployed the National Guard over a state’s objections, recalling tensions from the civil rights era. The case underscores ongoing constitutional debates over federal authority, states’ rights, and the militarization of domestic law enforcement in politically charged contexts.
