Judge blocks Trump’s Guard seizure, but appeals court hits pause


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Federal overreach

A judge ruled the Trump administration illegally seized California’s National Guard and ordered troops returned to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 9th Circuit temporarily paused that ruling while it reviews the case.

Marine deployment

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved the deployment of 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. A federal judge declined to block their arrival, citing no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Public backlash

Protests erupted over ICE raids, with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass demanding federal agents leave the city. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Americans split on Trump’s use of military force.


Full story

A federal judge ruled June 12 that the Trump administration illegally seized control of California’s National Guard and ordered troops returned to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s command. In a 36-page decision, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote that the administration had bypassed legal procedures required under federal law, violating both statutory limits and the Tenth Amendment.

Breyer’s temporary restraining order blocked up to 4,000 troops from operating under federal orders, stating the deployment had inflamed tensions during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles. The state requested limited restrictions, but the judge went further, fully severing federal authority over the California National Guard.

Breyer ruled that Trump’s description of the protests as a “rebellion” lacked support and raised serious First Amendment concerns.

What did the appeals court decide next?

Roughly two hours after Breyer’s order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, allowing the Trump administration to maintain control of the Guard while the court reviews the case. The panel, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, will hold a hearing on Tuesday to consider the merits of the appeal.

The stay gives the court time to decide whether to block the lower court’s ruling during the appeal. If the government loses, it may request emergency relief from the Supreme Court. While temporary restraining orders typically cannot be appealed, courts sometimes treat them as preliminary injunctions when constitutional issues are at stake.

Are other troops involved in Los Angeles?

Yes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the deployment of 700 active-duty Marines to support federal immigration agents. The Marines planned to arrive on Friday, June 13. 

Judge Breyer refused to restrict their movements, saying no evidence showed they had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement without proper legal authority.

How have local officials and the public responded?

Newsom responded by reaffirming his confidence in the lower court ruling, calling it a “test of democracy.” The governor had planned to redeploy the Guard to duties such as wildfire prevention and border security. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized the federal raids and called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to leave the city.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Americans split over Trump’s use of the military: 48% supported it when protests became violent, while 41% opposed it.

Jonah Applegarth (Production Specialist), Devan Markham (Morning Digital Producer), and Kaleb Gillespie (Video Editor) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Why this story matters

The dispute over federal versus state control of California’s National Guard during protests raises constitutional questions about the limits of presidential authority, state rights, and the use of the military in domestic situations.

Federal versus state authority

The case centers on the legal boundaries between federal and state power, with Judge Breyer ruling that the Trump administration bypassed required procedures for commandeering the California National Guard. Hours later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, allowing federal control of the Guard to continue while the case proceeds.

Military involvement in civil matters

The deployment of National Guard troops and Marines during protests and immigration operations raises debates over the appropriate role of the military in situations involving civil unrest and law enforcement.

Constitutional rights and legal process

Judge Breyer's ruling referenced constitutional concerns, highlighting restrictions under the Tenth Amendment and the importance of following due legal process, while also noting First Amendment implications when describing the protests.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 117 media outlets

Community reaction

Local communities in Los Angeles, including residents, business owners, and advocacy organizations, have responded with a mix of concern and protest. According to several sources, many community members fear the increased militarization will escalate tensions, while some business owners worry about safety and economic disruption. Protests have continued, with demonstrators demanding an end to immigration raids and opposing the military presence.

Do the math

The estimated cost for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles is about $134 million, according to Pentagon testimony. This budget covers up to two months and includes resources necessary for troop deployment, transport, and sustenance, reflecting a considerable use of federal funds for domestic operations.

Policy impact

If the court sides with the federal government, future presidents may have broader latitude to deploy troops domestically without state approval, affecting state-federal relations and the balance of powers. For residents, increased military presence raises questions about civil liberties, law enforcement protocols, and the potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected protest activities.

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame the troop deployment as an illegal abuse of federal power and an authoritarian escalation that threatens democracy, emphasizing Governor Newsom’s condemnation of what they depict as a “spectacle” and “unprecedented power grab” by the Trump administration.
  • Not enough unique coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right portray the deployment as a lawful, necessary measure to restore order amid “lawless violence,” branding California officials as politically motivated and incompetent, highlighted by Trump calling Newsom “grossly incompetent.”

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

117 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • A judge denied California Governor Gavin Newsom's request for an immediate restraining order against Trump's military deployment in Los Angeles.
  • District Judge Charles Breyer granted the Trump administration additional time to respond to Newsom's filing.
  • Newsom's request aimed to stop the deployment amid protests against federal immigration enforcement in Southern California.
  • California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that the troops create imminent harm to state sovereignty and promote civil unrest.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom's urgent plea to prevent President Trump from sending thousands of National Guard members and several hundred Marines to Los Angeles in response to ongoing protests and immigration enforcement activities.
  • The deployment occurred amid growing conflicts between the Trump administration and California's Democratic leaders, who responded by filing a lawsuit on Monday accusing the federal government of breaching state sovereignty and federal law by federalizing the National Guard without the governor's approval.
  • Judge Breyer scheduled a hearing for Thursday to examine the legal authority of the President to deploy military forces domestically without state approval and to consider arguments on the impact on state sovereignty and civil liberties.
  • The Department of Justice opposed California’s motion as 'legally meritless,' asserting that blocking the deployment would jeopardize Homeland Security personnel safety and disrupt federal enforcement efforts, which include immigration-related operations costing an estimated $134 million.
  • The ruling permits the continued presence of federal forces in Los Angeles during the legal process, underscoring a significant federal-state conflict over immigration enforcement and the use of military personnel in civilian contexts.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A federal judge has scheduled a hearing for California's request to block President Donald Trump's deployment of military troops to Los Angeles amid protests.
  • California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, argue that the deployment is unconstitutional and violates state sovereignty.
  • The Trump administration argues that blocking troop deployments to Los Angeles would undermine the president's power to ensure safety and protect immigration laws, claiming that federal agents have faced violence.
  • The dispute raises concerns about the federal military's use for domestic law enforcement, potentially impacting future federal-state relations and civil liberties amid ongoing protests against immigration enforcement.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™

Timeline

  • The U.S. military plans to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles within 48 hours to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, according to officials. They’ll join 2,000 National Guard troops already stationed in the area. The Marines will operate under Title 10 authority, which permits them to detain individuals in certain situations temporarily but prohibits them from engaging in direct law enforcement activities. Their mission includes protecting federal personnel and property.
    Spencer Platt/Getty Images
    Military
    Jun 12

    Protests over ICE raids trigger national response, legal challenges

    The U.S. military plans to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles within 48 hours to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, according to officials. They’ll join 2,000 National Guard troops already stationed in the area. The Marines will operate under Title 10 authority, which permits them to detain individuals in certain situations temporarily but…

Timeline

  • The U.S. military plans to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles within 48 hours to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, according to officials. They’ll join 2,000 National Guard troops already stationed in the area. The Marines will operate under Title 10 authority, which permits them to detain individuals in certain situations temporarily but prohibits them from engaging in direct law enforcement activities. Their mission includes protecting federal personnel and property.
    Spencer Platt/Getty Images
    Military
    Jun 12

    Protests over ICE raids trigger national response, legal challenges

    The U.S. military plans to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles within 48 hours to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, according to officials. They’ll join 2,000 National Guard troops already stationed in the area. The Marines will operate under Title 10 authority, which permits them to detain individuals in certain situations temporarily but…