Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump violated a 19th-century law when his administration deployed thousands of troops to Los Angeles last June to assist in immigration enforcement and crowd control.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the deployment of 4,000 California National Guard members and 700 Marines amounted to using the military as a domestic police force, a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the armed forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement without congressional approval.
“The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles,” Breyer wrote in his 52-page ruling.
“In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” he added.
California challenges Trump
The state of California sued the Trump administration, arguing the president overstepped his authority by calling in federal troops after protests erupted in downtown Los Angeles over immigration policies. State officials said the deployment fueled public fear, disrupted local businesses, and violated the principle that civilian law enforcement should remain separate from military power.
“Having a standing army in Los Angeles defied a deep-rooted policy against military involvement in civilian life,” Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong argued in court.
Breyer’s ruling orders the administration to halt the use of federal troops in California for law enforcement purposes, including arrests, searches, riot control, and evidence collection. The order allows deployments only in extreme circumstances where the strict bar of the Posse Comitatus Act is met.
Justice Department defense rejected
The Department of Justice defended Trump’s move, insisting troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property. DOJ lawyer Eric Hamilton told the court the soldiers acted in a “protective function,” not in law enforcement.
Breyer pushed back, warning that under the government’s theory the president could effectively create a national police force. “What’s the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?” he asked during the trial. “It’s the absence of any limits to a national police force. That’s what I’m sitting here trying to figure out.”
Testimony revealed limited threats
At trial, senior officials overseeing the operation, including Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman of the National Guard, testified they were told troops could engage in security patrols, traffic control, and riot response, in addition to guarding federal facilities. Intelligence reports, however, suggested minimal risk to immigration officers at the time, undermining the administration’s justification.
Breyer noted that while there were demonstrations and some incidents of violence in Los Angeles, “there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond.”
National implications
The ruling deals a blow to Trump’s broader push to send federal troops into U.S. cities, a strategy critics have called unconstitutional overreach. Trump has already dispatched forces to Washington, D.C., and threatened to do the same in Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities.
Breyer warned that expanding such deployments would “create a national police force with the President as its chief,” eroding the constitutional separation between civilian and military power.
The Department of Justice has not yet indicated whether it will appeal.
