{"id":13975,"date":"2025-09-02T16:00:32","date_gmt":"2025-09-02T14:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=13975"},"modified":"2025-09-02T16:00:33","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T14:00:33","slug":"ein-praesident-auf-der-anklagebank-richter-stoppt-trumps-einsatz-der-nationalgarde-in-los-angeles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/ein-praesident-auf-der-anklagebank-richter-stoppt-trumps-einsatz-der-nationalgarde-in-los-angeles\/","title":{"rendered":"A President in the Dock - Judge Stops Trump\u2019s Use of the National Guard in Los Angeles"},"content":{"rendered":"

It was a legal thunderclap that rolled over Washington this Tuesday: Federal Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles to accompany immigration raids was unlawful. In his ruling, he stated that the government had violated a central safeguard of U.S. democracy - the prohibition on using the military to enforce civilian law. This gives California, which had sued against the deployment, victory on all essential points. The decision is explosive. It concerns not only the deployment of several hundred guardsmen who patrolled alongside ICE agents in the metropolis over the summer, but it shakes one of the core questions of the American state: Where does presidential power end, where does the protection of citizens against military force at home begin? Breyer left no doubt that the government\u2019s actions represented a breach of taboo. \"The executive may not use the military as an amplifier of its political agenda,\" the written opinion states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Charles Breyer<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

At the heart of the dispute is the Posse Comitatus Act, which since 1878 has prohibited the use of soldiers for police tasks. Exceptions are narrowly limited - for example, in natural disasters or when uprisings threaten public order. Lawyers for the Trump administration had argued that the National Guardsmen had merely provided physical protection for ICE officers, not themselves arrested people or enforced laws. Breyer rejected this interpretation: The mere presence of uniformed troops at roadblocks and during raids, he said, had a chilling effect that exceeded the constitutionally guaranteed framework. The lawsuit had been filed by California, supported by civil rights organizations and several members of Congress from Los Angeles. They had described the deployment as a \"militarized deterrence campaign\" aimed at silencing migrants and supporters. In fact, during the protests against mass deportations in July, scenes had unfolded that resembled crisis zones: Humvees on Hollywood Boulevard, soldiers in full combat gear, tear gas clouds over downtown. The ruling could now serve as a groundbreaking precedent - and encourage other states to challenge similar measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority. Whether they believed that some constitutional or other exception applied does not matter;<\/strong> Ob sie glaubten, dass eine verfassungsrechtliche oder andere Ausnahme Anwendung fand, spielt keine Rolle;<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Politically, the ruling hits the White House at a delicate moment. Trump has made his immigration policy the centerpiece of his presidency and had recently promoted using \"all means of the state\" to accelerate deportations. Opponents accuse him of creating an atmosphere of fear and eroding the rule of law. Breyer\u2019s decision now makes it clear: The use of military power has clear limits, even for the president. Legal experts expect the administration to appeal - likely all the way to the Supreme Court. But even now the ruling sends a signal. It is a reminder that the separation of powers is not a rhetorical ornament but a concrete barrier against executive overreach. California Governor Gavin Newsom called it a \"victory for democracy and the Constitution.\" Civil rights advocates called it a \"historic shield\" for immigrants and protesters. Trump\u2019s spokespeople, on the other hand, reacted defiantly. They said they had merely tried to protect \"federal property and federal officers.\" \"The president will not allow chaos to reign in the streets.\" But the court has made it unmistakably clear: Chaos is no license for militarization. The image that remains from this ruling is that of a president overextending his power - and of a judge holding up the legal stop sign. The battle over the boundary between domestic security and constitutionally protected freedoms is thus not over, but it has taken a new direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
\n