A federal judge has raised concerns about the legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard during recent anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles. During a hearing, Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, questioned the Department of Justice on whether Trump adhered to the law in activating the National Guard, warning against the unchecked use of executive power. Brey, who is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, highlighted that the United States is not a monarchy, and presidential authority is constitutionally limited. The judge underscored the need for a clear legal framework to distinguish between legitimate national security measures and overreach. The case involves California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has challenged Trump’s actions, arguing that the deployment violated Title 1, which outlines federal authority over the National Guard. While the judge did not issue a ruling immediately, the hearing has sparked debate over the balance between executive power and state sovereignty.
A federal judge has raised concerns about the legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard during recent anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles. During a hearing, Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, questioned the Department of Justice on whether Trump adhered to the law in activating the National Guard, warning against the unchecked use of executive power. Brey, who is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, highlighted that the United States is not a monarchy, and presidential authority is constitutionally limited. The judge underscored the need for a clear legal framework to distinguish between legitimate national security measures and overreach. The case involves California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has challenged Trump’s actions, arguing that the deployment violated Title 1, which outlines federal authority over the National Guard. While the judge did not issue a ruling immediately, the hearing has sparked debate over the balance between executive power and state sovereignty.
The judge’s remarks came as he weighed arguments presented by DOJ Civil Division head Brett Shumate. Shumate argued the courts do not even have authority to review Trump’s invocation of Title 10, a set of laws that lays out what mechanisms a president can use to federalize National Guard members. The National Guard is a state-based military force under the dual control of presidents and governors. Typically, a president activates the National Guard with a governor’s consent. But, as demonstrated in the courtroom in Northern California on Thursday, the law leaves room for debate about whether a governor’s permission is necessary. The Title 10 law that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth relied on to federalize thousands of National Guard members says presidents must go ‘through’ a governor. A memorandum Hegseth sent out deploying the soldiers states that he went through Newsom, a point Breyer questioned.
‘I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if, in fact, you didn’t give it to him,’ Breyer said. Newsom vehemently opposed Trump sending the military into his state, saying the president’s show of force exacerbated the fledgling riots in parts of Los Angeles and caused them to worsen. After the president’s proclamation, protests and riots intensified. Demonstrators set several self-driving cars on fire, looted stores, and continued assaulting law enforcement officers, including by pelting officers with concrete and other hard objects.
California’s attorney general filed a lawsuit over Trump’s actions, pitting the president against Newsom, one of the most prominent Democrats in the country and a possible 2028 presidential contender. Attorneys for Newsom argued in a complaint that Trump and Hegseth exceeded their authority, violated Title 10, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. They ‘unlawfully bypassed the Governor of California,’ the attorneys wrote. In addition to possibly requiring consent from a governor, Title 10 also requires that there be a rebellion or similar type of scenario that is underway. ‘At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection,’ the attorneys wrote. ‘Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years.’