The Trump administration violated federal law by deploying National Guard troops to southern California during immigration raids and accompanying protests, a US federal judge has ruled.
The order comes after the state of California sued, saying the troops sent to Los Angeles over the summer were violating a law that prohibits military enforcement of domestic laws.
Lawyers for Donald Trump’s Republican administration have argued the Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t apply because the troops were protecting federal officers, not enforcing laws.
They say the troops were mobilised under an authority that allows the president to deploy them.
Several hundred troops remain deployed in San Francisco, which US District Judge Charles Breyer did not require be withdrawn.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has mocked the president after the judge’s ruling. (AP: Rich Pedroncelli)
The judge’s decision comes as Mr Trump openly discusses deploying National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York.
He has already deployed the guard as part of his unprecedented law enforcement takeover in Washington DC, where he has direct legal control.
California governor mocks Trump
Mr Trump federalised members of the California National Guard and sent them to Los Angeles, the second-largest US city, over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders.
Roughly 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines were deployed to Los Angeles in early June to deal with protests, over the objections of state and local officials.
The Los Angeles protests were sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the city. (AP Photo: Ethan Swope)
All were pulled back by the end of July except about 250 National Guard troops. The judge noted that the remaining troops got improper training on what they can and cannot do under the law.
The LA protests weren’t sparked in a vacuum — this is what built up to them
Mr Trump deployed those forces under a law that allows the president to call the guard into federal service when the country “is invaded,” when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,” or when the president is otherwise unable “to execute the laws of the United States.”
Mr Trump has pushed the bounds of typical military activity on domestic soil, including through the creation of militarised zones along the US-Mexico border.
Mr Newsom, who has emerged as a key political critic of Mr Trump, reacted to the ruling on X by posting in an all-caps reflection of the president’s own social media style.
“DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN. The courts agree — his militarisation of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL.”
Judge rules administration ‘wilfully’ violated law
The White House and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
In his ruling, Judge Breyer’s ruling accused the Trump administration of “wilfully” violating the law, saying it used troops for functions that were barred by their own training materials, refused to “meaningfully coordinate with state and local officials” and “coached” federal law enforcement agencies on the language to use when requesting assistance.
“These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority,” he wrote.
“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.”
AP
