Judge Charles Breyer Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles - Constitutional Violation Confirmed

It is a legal thunderclap that resonates far beyond California: On Thursday, federal judge Charles R. Breyer issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump in the case of Newsom v. Trump (Case No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB), ordering him to immediately return control of the National Guard to the State of California. The reason: The deployment of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops to support immigration raids in Los Angeles was illegal, violated the Constitution of the United States, and exceeded the president’s statutory authority.

The order takes effect at noon on Friday. Until then, the situation remains tense - both legally and politically. The White House initially did not respond to inquiries about the ruling. But the court’s decision carries weight: In his reasoning, Breyer explicitly cites the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees states the right to self-governance, especially when it comes to the deployment of troops within their own borders.

The background: For days, thousands have been gathering in Los Angeles to protest the Trump administration’s intensified deportation measures. In the immediate vicinity of the Metropolitan Detention Center, a central location for detaining migrants, repeated clashes have occurred between demonstrators and security forces. Videos show mounted police striking people with wooden batons, while heavily armed units of the National Guard and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secure the area.

California Governor Gavin Newsom had rejected the deployment of the Guard from the outset and eventually filed suit. In an emergency motion, the state requested that the deployment of troops for immigration raids be prohibited. The National Guard had originally been requested to protect federal buildings, Newsom argued, not to support actions that would further escalate social tensions. The deployment, said the governor, was a dangerous precedent and contradicted the spirit of federalism.

Judge Breyer largely agreed with this reasoning. In the court’s order dated June 12, 2025, it states:

The defendants are temporarily enjoined from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. The defendants are directed to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. The court further stays this order until noon on June 13, 2025. The plaintiffs are ordered to post a nominal bond of 100 US dollars within 24 hours.

At the same time, Breyer scheduled a further hearing for June 20 to determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted. The deadlines are strictly set: The plaintiffs must file their briefs by June 16, the defendants have until June 18 to submit their opposition, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due by June 19. What this ruling will mean on the ground remains unclear for now. While the Guard must be returned to state control, it is uncertain how the executive will respond, whether there will be resistance to the court’s order, and how the security situation will evolve. One thing is clear: The rule of law has spoken - and drawn a firm line for the president.

Amid heated debates about abuse of power, migration, and militarization, Charles Breyer has sent a clear message: The Constitution is not a plaything of political arbitrariness. And California, at least for now, remains under its own control.