Federal judge rejects California's bid to immediately halt Trump military deployment in Los Angeles

IANS June 11, 2025 318 views

A federal judge rejected California’s urgent request to stop Trump’s military deployment in Los Angeles, siding with federal arguments. The state claims the troop presence violates laws barring military involvement in civilian policing. Federal lawyers called blocking the deployment "dangerous," citing risks to security operations. The case may head to the 9th Circuit if California appeals.

"Blocking the deployment would be extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous." – Federal Government Lawyers
Federal judge rejects California's bid to immediately halt Trump military deployment in Los Angeles
Sacramento, June 11: A federal judge rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom's emergency request to stop the Trump administration from deploying military forces in Los Angeles immediately, dealing a blow to the state's efforts to challenge federal authority over domestic military operations.

Key Points

1

Judge Breyer delays restraining order against 4,700 troops

2

Newsom claims deployment violates Posse Comitatus Act

3

Feds warn halting troops risks safety and operations

4

Case could escalate to 9th Circuit Court

US District Judge Charles Breyer declined to issue a temporary restraining the order that would have blocked approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines from patrolling the city immediately. Instead, Breyer granted the Trump administration until 2:00 p.m. Wednesday to file its response to California's emergency motion, Xinhua news agency reported.

The ruling came after California's officials argued that President Donald Trump's deployment violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits active-duty armed forces from conducting civilian law enforcement.

Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed in the Tuesday morning's motion that the military presence created "immediate and irreparable harm" to state sovereignty.

Federal government lawyers countered by calling Newsom's request "legally meritless" and warned that blocking the deployment would be "extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous."

They argued such action would "jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the Federal Government's ability to carry out operations."

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the military assignment would continue for 60 days at an estimated cost of 134 million US dollars.

The deployment represents one of the largest domestic military operations in recent years. Breyer, who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m. Thursday local time to consider California's motion.

The Trump administration must file their opposition brief by 11:00 a.m. Wednesday local time, with California allowed to respond by Thursday morning.

If Breyer ultimately rules against California, the state could appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a narrow majority of Democratic appointees.

California's underlying lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the deployment will continue, regardless of the outcome of the temporary restraining order.

Reader Comments

Here are 6 diverse Indian perspective comments on this US domestic issue:
R
Rahul K.
Interesting to see federal-state tensions in the US. In India, we've seen similar Centre-state conflicts, especially during Delhi's statehood debate. But deploying military domestically? That's extreme! Hope California gets justice. 🇮🇳
P
Priya M.
$134 million for 60 days? That's nearly ₹1000 crores! Imagine if we spent that much on our border security with China and Pakistan instead of America spending on its own cities 🤔
A
Arjun S.
Judge Breyer made the right call to hear both sides properly. In India, we've seen rushed judicial decisions during emergencies that created more problems. Due process matters, even in urgent situations.
S
Sunita R.
Reminds me of President's Rule in Indian states, but at least that's constitutional. Using military for civilian law enforcement? Very dangerous precedent. Hope California wins this battle 🙏
V
Vikram J.
American media talks so much about democracy but look at this - military on streets against state's wishes! We should learn from this and strengthen our own federal structure. Jai Hind!
N
Neha P.
Both sides have valid points. Security is important but so are states' rights. In India, we balance this through CRPF deployments during state requests. Maybe US needs similar middle ground?

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published


Disclaimer: Comments here reflect the author's views alone. Insulting or using offensive language against individuals, communities, religion, or the nation is illegal.

Tags:
Trump military deployment Gavin Newsom lawsuit Los Angeles National Guard Posse Comitatus Act federal judge ruling