San Francisco judge rules Trump's use of military in LA violated federal law

President Donald Trump and his administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that bars the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement, in its ongoing deployment of federalized National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area, a San Francisco district judge ruled Tuesday.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an order enjoining the federal government from using its troops to execute the laws. But he stayed his own order until Sept. 12, giving the administration an opportunity to seek a stay from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regardless of how motions for stays and appeals are treated by the 9th Circuit, legal observers who have been following the Posse Comitatus case expect the complaint to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court - which has consistently backed the Trump administration.

"This is going to be an around-the-country issue," said Daniel L. Jacobson, a Tustin attorney, noting that Trump threatened at a news conference Tuesday to send federal troops to Chicago and that Breyer wrote in his opinion that the president also talked of sending troops to other California cities, including Oakland.

"The Supreme Court will have to take this," he added in a phone interview.

Breyer, who held a three-day trial on the case in August, rejected the Trump administration's argument that there is a "constitutional exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act, a law passed by Congress in the years following the end of Reconstruction.

He wrote that federal troops - operating under U.S. Army North command as Task Force 51 - violated their own training materials barring the troops' use in "security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, and riot control."

"Defendants contend that the Posse Comitatus Act harbors an exception beyond the framework that the case law establishes. Under this 'constitutional exception,' as Defendants call it, the President has inherent constitutional authority to protect federal property, federal personnel, and federal functions, so any actions that can be construed as such 'protection' are lawful in spite of the Posse Comitatus Act," Breyer wrote.

"This assertion is not grounded in the history of the Act, Supreme Court jurisprudence on executive authority, or common sense," he added.

Under the judge's injunction, the federal government is "enjoined from deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops heretofore deployed in California, to execute the laws ... unless and until Defendants satisfy the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception, as defined herein, to the Posse Comitatus Act."

"Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act," he wrote. "In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial."

Natalie Baldassarre, a U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman, declined to comment on Breyer's injunction or the federal government's next steps. It is widely expected the Trump administration will seek a stay from the 9th Circuit unless it goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump, during a news conference after the ruling, said Breyer - the younger brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer - was a "radical left judge" and emphasized that the National Guard troops can remain in Los Angeles.

The bench trial, which concluded Aug. 13, is the first time in American history a judge has been asked to determine if a president's federalization of a state's National Guard and deployment of the military is legal under the 1878 law. Newsom et al. v. Trump et al., 25-cv-04870 (N.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2025).

Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Trump in June after the president federalized 4,000 National Guard troops over his objection and sent 700 Marines. The Marines have since left, and the number of federalized National Guard troops has been trimmed substantially.

Deputy U.S. Assistant Attorney General Eric J. Hamilton said during closing arguments that there was "no civil enforcement remedy" to enforce the Posse Comitatus Act.

Breyer disagreed in Tuesday's order, writing that "without injunctive relief, California would lack any remedy against Defendants' unlawful use of the U.S. military in a way that infringes on California's police power and risks economic and other harms to California's residents."

"To the extent that there remains any question as to the equitable power of the Court to enjoin Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act, the history and purpose of the Act strongly weigh in favor of the availability of injunctive relief," the judge continued.

"It is ahistorical and illogical to think that Congress reacted to this by passing a statute that had as its sole enforcement mechanism federal prosecution of individual troops by the same federal government that would have ordered the troops to engage in domestic law enforcement," Breyer added.

During closing arguments, Hamilton said the president sent the National Guard and Marines because federal law enforcement officials, detaining people alleged to be in the country without permission, "came under sustained attack" by protesters in Los Angeles in June and July.

"There was a rebellion," Hamilton said, saying the actions of "violent protesters" prompted the president's conclusion in a June memorandum to federalize the California National Guard and send the Marines under a different law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3).

Breyer previously granted a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump on June 12, ordering that control of the National Guard be restored to Newsom after he filed a lawsuit.

But a week later, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel - comprised of Judges Mark J. Bennett Eric D. Miller, two Trump appointees; and Jennifer Sung, an appointee of President Joe Biden - reversed Breyer and granted a stay.

The panel held that courts must show "high deference" to presidential decisions under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which governs whether the National Guard can be federalized over a governor's objections to quell a rebellion, the danger of a rebellion, or if he is "unable with the regular order to execute the laws of the United States." Newsom et al. v. Trump et al., 25-3727 (9th Circ., filed June 12, 2025).

The 9th Circuit panel did not take up the Posse Comitatus Act in its June ruling, leaving that issue for Breyer.

"The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to § 12406(3) deployments," Hamilton told Breyer during last month's trial. "The statute authorizes the president to federalize the guard where the president is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."

Breyer termed such arguments "extreme," writing that adopting the federal government's § 12406(3) argument would allow the president to assert that he could not enforce tax, drug or election laws and use that to justify sending federalized National Guard troops.

"This reading would have rendered the Posse Comitatus Act effectively useless at the time it was passed," he wrote. "Courts should avoid statutory interpretation that leads to such absurd results."

"The Court will not take Defendants' invitation to create a brand-new exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that nullifies the Act itself," Breyer added.

Deputy Attorney General Meghan H. Strong, representing the state, contested Hamilton's assertions during closing arguments at the end of the August trial.

"The Constitution and federal law do not permit anyone, not even the president, to use the military in civilian law enforcement," she said. "But that's exactly what we have happening here."

Strong disputed the notion that 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) creates a "blanket exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act when National Guard troops are federalized.

Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta both praised Breyer's ruling.

The judge criticized what he described as the 9th Circuit panel's reading of the statute.

"The Ninth Circuit's expansive view of presidential discretion to invoke § 12406(3) affects the viability of Defendants' argument that the statute operates as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act," he wrote.

"Their argument, when combined with the Ninth Circuit's reading of § 12406(3), would create a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act that would swallow the entire Act -- and the Insurrection Act along with it, as § 12406(3) would place no meaningful guardrails on the federalization and use of National Guard troops and would thereby render the Insurrection Act redundant," Breyer added.