Judge Charles Breyer delivered a significant legal blow to the Trump administration today, ruling that President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated federal law by deploying military forces for law enforcement activities in Los Angeles this summer. The 52-page decision marks a crucial victory for California Governor Gavin Newsom in his ongoing legal battle against federal military intervention.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, based in San Francisco, determined that the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June systematically violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 150-year-old federal law that prohibits using military forces for domestic law enforcement operations.
The Core Violation: Posse Comitatus Act
“In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer stated in his comprehensive ruling. The judge found that armed soldiers, often with their identities obscured by protective armor, used military vehicles to establish protective perimeters and assist with law enforcement activities during immigration raids and related protests.
The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, serves as a fundamental barrier between military and civilian law enforcement. Breyer’s ruling emphasizes that Congress spoke clearly when it passed this legislation to prevent military overreach in domestic affairs.
Background of the California Conflict
The legal dispute began when Trump federalized California’s National Guard and deployed Marines to Los Angeles amid anti-ICE protests and immigration enforcement operations. Governor Newsom immediately challenged the action, arguing it exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
Breyer initially ruled against the Trump administration in June, but the administration quickly appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted a stay allowing the troops to remain. The case has been winding through the courts throughout the summer, with today’s ruling representing the most comprehensive judicial analysis of the deployment.
Details of Military Activities
According to evidence presented at trial, federal forces engaged in activities that clearly crossed the line from military support to law enforcement participation. The deployment included:
- Armed soldiers establishing protective perimeters around federal facilities
- Military personnel assisting with crowd control operations
- Use of military vehicles in civilian law enforcement contexts
- Soldiers whose identities were obscured participating in domestic operations
Previous Rulings and Legal History
This isn’t Judge Charles Breyer’s first high-profile ruling involving presidential power. Earlier in June, he also ruled that Trump lacked authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard, concluding that immigration protests in Los Angeles failed to meet the legal criteria of a “rebellion.”
Breyer, a Clinton appointee who serves as a Senior Judge for the Northern District of California, has overseen several significant federal cases throughout his tenure. His most notable recent work includes approving a $16.5 billion settlement for U.S. consumers in the Volkswagen emissions scandal.
Political and Legal Implications
The ruling carries significant implications for federal-state relations and presidential power. By finding that both Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated federal law, Breyer has established important precedent about the limits of military deployment for domestic purposes.
California officials praised the decision as a vindication of state rights and constitutional principles. The ruling specifically blocks Trump from using National Guard and military troops in California for law enforcement activities, including making arrests, searching locations, and crowd control operations.
What Happens Next
The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Breyer has temporarily stayed his ruling until September 12, allowing time for the appeals process to begin.
The case, officially known as Newsom v. Trump, represents a broader constitutional struggle over executive power and federal authority. Legal experts expect the appeals process to continue for several months, potentially reaching higher courts.
Congressional Response
Adding another layer of controversy, House Resolution 556 has been introduced calling for the impeachment of Judge Charles Breyer, though this appears to be related to broader political tensions rather than today’s specific ruling.
The resolution alleges “high crimes and misdemeanors” but faces significant procedural hurdles in the current political climate.
Today’s ruling by Judge Charles Breyer reinforces fundamental principles about military and civilian separation while addressing urgent questions about presidential authority in domestic affairs. As legal battles continue, this decision stands as a significant moment in defining the boundaries of federal power.