A federal judge on Friday asked if the Trump administration’s military deployment in Los Angeles violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil. This comes as California’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s deployment of troops to respond to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco for a brief hearing. The appeals court had previously allowed the administration to retain control over the National Guard troops, leading to this legal review.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer did not issue any additional rulings but requested briefings from both sides by Monday on whether the federal department had violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had argued that the deployment constituted a violation of the law, though Brey. had delayed considering that allegation. The state had asked for a preliminary injunction to return control of the troops to Newsom.
Vice President JD Vance, who visited Los Angeles to meet with deployed troops, defended the administration’s actions, stating that the president’s rationale for sending in federal troops was legitimate. He argued that the troops were necessary to restore order, and that the president would use them again if needed. National Guard troops have accompanied federal agents during immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man, marking the first time a civilian had been detained since the deployment began.
Breyer found Trump had overstepped his legal authority by deploying troops without meeting the criteria of ‘rebellion or danger of a rebellion,’ as per the law. However, the appellate court’s ruling halted the judge’s previous injunction. While the administration argued that courts cannot question presidential decisions, the appellate panel ruled that the president’s actions had enough justification due to the violent protests.
The California National Guard will remain under federal control at least for now as the legal battle continues. This marks the first federal deployment of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965. The case underscores the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities over the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.