Judge Charles Breyer—a Clinton appointee and brother of former liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer—declared Tuesday that President Donald J. Trump acted unlawfully when he federalized the National Guard and deployed a small number of U.S. Marines in response to violent anti-ICE protests and riots in California during the early summer of 2025.
The move by Trump, which involved the activation of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops, came amid escalating civil unrest and open defiance from California’s far-left leadership, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom, who adamantly opposed any federal assistance in quelling the chaos triggered by immigration enforcement operations.
During the trial, Judge Breyer expressed skepticism about presidential authority, questioning whether any limits exist on a commander-in-chief’s ability to deploy U.S. military resources domestically in times of crisis. “I go back to the thing that I’m really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?” Breyer asked during court proceedings.
Breyer ultimately ruled that Trump’s decision violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that restricts the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement roles. Yet critics of the ruling argue that this interpretation is both narrow and dangerous—especially when public safety is at stake and local officials refuse to act.
Despite the fact that most of the National Guard troops had already been demobilized by the time of the ruling, state attorneys insisted that the continued presence of around 300 troops still constituted a “significant” violation. “That’s certainly a large enough number of soldiers to constitute a Posse Comitatus Act violation,” one attorney claimed.
The Trump administration pushed back, arguing the law was not applicable in this case, particularly since the troops were not engaged in traditional policing but rather supporting federal authorities during lawful immigration operations. Major General Scott Sherman, who oversaw the Guard’s deployment, testified that soldiers were trained specifically to avoid violating Posse Comitatus, suggesting the administration took compliance seriously.
While Breyer’s ruling may have limited immediate effects in California, it sets a potentially dangerous precedent. Conservatives warn that if upheld, it could hobble future presidents—especially Republican ones—from responding to breakdowns in law and order in blue states that obstruct federal law enforcement.
Legal experts expect the Trump administration, alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, to appeal the decision. This could place the issue before the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. Ironically, the same Ninth Circuit previously found in June that courts must be “highly deferential” to the president regarding National Guard deployment—casting doubt on the durability of Breyer’s ruling.
This case is about far more than just California—it’s about whether progressive state leaders can override the federal government during times of crisis. And it’s about whether unelected judges will be allowed to undermine the constitutional powers of the president simply because they disagree with the politics behind those decisions.
As the nation watches what could be a pivotal legal battle, one thing is clear: Trump’s America First approach continues to expose deep cracks in the system—and in the left’s relentless effort to weaken presidential authority when it’s not their own.
