A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles and ordered control of the force returned to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction that pauses the administration’s latest bid to keep about 300 Guardsmen under federal control through early February and to send many of them to other states for immigration enforcement support.
Breyer’s ruling is the second time he has rejected the administration’s attempt to federalize the California Guard under Title 10 authorities for street deployments tied to immigration operations. He criticized the government for retaining state troops without evidence that enforcing federal law had been hindered “in any way,” writing that the Founders designed checks and balances and that the defendants “make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”
What the order does
The injunction halts Defense Department orders issued in August and October that placed roughly 300 California Guardsmen in federal service to protect federal personnel and facilities during immigration enforcement actions.
The October directive sent 200 of those soldiers to Oregon and the remaining 100 to locations across Los Angeles. The Guard members had been slated to remain in federal status through Feb. 2.
Breyer directed that operational control revert to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who opposed the federalization. The judge put his order on hold until Monday, giving the Justice Department time to seek appellate relief. Until the hold expires or an appeals court intervenes, the injunction prevents new deployments under the contested orders.
Title 10 at the center of the dispute
At issue is the scope of Title 10, which allows a president to call a state’s National Guard into federal service under specific conditions, such as when he cannot execute U.S. laws with regular forces or when there is a rebellion or danger of one. The administration argues that immigration-related unrest and threats to federal personnel justified keeping California Guardsmen in federal status and moving them across state lines.
Breyer rejected that view, saying the government has adopted an “expansive” reading of presidential power that would let the executive “effectively creat[e] a national police force made up of state troops.” He described as “shocking” the claim that courts cannot review extensions of federalized status once an initial order is issued, warning that such a theory would allow a president to hold state forces indefinitely so long as the first invocation of Title 10 was lawful.
How we got here
President Donald Trump first invoked Title 10 to federalize portions of the California Guard in June, citing protests against immigration raids in the Los Angeles area. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initially placed about 4,000 Guardsmen into federal service. Gov. Newsom sued, and on June 12 Judge Breyer issued a temporary restraining order finding that the federalization did not meet Title 10’s prerequisites.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later temporarily lifted Breyer’s order, allowing federalization and deployments to proceed while the appeal is considered.
The 9th Circuit has heard arguments but has not issued a opinion. In the interim, the administration released most of the federalized California troops but kept roughly 300 under federal control through subsequent orders, prompting the state’s latest request for injunctive relief.
State and federal arguments
California officials argued that conditions have changed since June and that there is no basis to keep the Guard federalized or to deploy its members outside the state, especially given the lack of recent violence tied to immigration enforcement.
They characterized the continued federal status as a “months-long military occupation” without justification or clear end date.
The administration responded that the court lacks authority to review extensions of the president’s federalization orders, which it described as mere continuations of the original June directive.
Breyer rejected that position, writing that adopting it would “permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops.” He also noted that sending 200 of the 300 remaining California Guardsmen to Oregon undermined the claim that Los Angeles faced a pressing need for their presence.
