PoliticusUSA remains a bastion of independent journalism thanks to the backing of readers like you. If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Legal analysts initially speculated that former President Donald Trump might have a viable case in his defense against California Governor Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit aimed at obtaining a restraining order to prevent the deployment of the National Guard in California. However, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer delivered an unexpected verdict, siding with Newsom.
In his ruling, Judge Breyer stated:
While defendants undoubtedly have an “interest in protecting federal agents and property” (Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 831 (9th Cir. 2020)), that interest does not extend beyond the limits of their authority.
Indeed, federal agents and property could benefit from a reduction in militarization, which might help de-escalate tensions.
Furthermore, the citizens of Los Angeles face a more significant harm from the ongoing, unlawful militarization of their city. Such actions not only heighten tensions with protestors, risking increased conflict and loss of life, but also deprive the state of crucial support from thousands of National Guard members for two months, needed for firefighting, combating the fentanyl crisis, and other vital operations. Additionally, these actions threaten to inhibit legitimate First Amendment rights.
Consequently, the Court concludes that the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs, and an injunction restraining the President’s military use in Los Angeles aligns with the public interest.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.
• Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.
• Control of the California National Guard is to be returned to Governor Newsom.
• This order will remain suspended until noon on June 13, 2025.
• Plaintiffs are required to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. This bond must be filed in the Clerk’s Office and deposited into the Court’s registry. Should this bond not be posted by the specified time, the order from this United States District Court for the Northern District of California will be dissolved.
• Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. A hearing on this order to show cause will take place on June 20, 2025, at 10 a.m. The plaintiffs’ moving papers must be filed no later than June 16, 2025; the defendants’ reply is due by June 18, 2025, and the plaintiffs’ rebuttal must be submitted by June 19, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
If this ruling holds, the implications stretch far beyond California, resonating across the entire nation. Should Trump be unable to federalize the National Guard at his whim, his aspirations for utilizing the military for mass immigration enforcement could crumble.
On the same day concerns rose regarding Trump’s apparent lack of constraints following the incident involving Senator Padilla and federal law enforcement, Judge Breyer’s decision serves as a reminder that some guardrails remain in place.
Trump cannot disregard this order, as it pertains to the chain of command within the National Guard. With Governor Newsom back in control, he has the authority to send the Guard home.
This ruling represents a pivotal moment in reinforcing the principle that the United States is not under a monarchy.
While the struggle is ongoing, this is a significant win for the separation of powers and a check on federal authority.
What are your thoughts on Judge Breyer’s ruling? We invite you to share them in the comments below.
