Recently, a federal court in California ruled against President Trump’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles. This came just hours after Trump proudly spoke about deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and hinted at sending troops to Chicago, with no specific timeline.
“We’re going in,” Trump announced during a press conference to discuss the new headquarters of the U.S. Space Force, expressing pride in Washington’s response to protests.
However, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker quickly dismissed Trump’s plans for Chicago, stating that the National Guard was neither needed nor wanted in the city. He warned that federal agents were gathering nearby and might trigger immigration raids that could incite protests. “We know that the Trump plan is to use any excuse to deploy armed military personnel,” he said.
This isn’t the first time the National Guard’s actions have raised eyebrows. In June, Trump deployed around 4,000 troops to Los Angeles to deal with protests against ICE operations, yet only about 300 remain on duty now. Interestingly, violent crime rates in D.C. have dropped, according to Justice Department figures, despite the increased military presence.
The recent ruling is significant. District Judge Charles R. Breyer has stated that Trump’s deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which has prevented military involvement in civilian law enforcement for nearly 140 years. The judge pointed out that the National Guard had exceeded its duties, engaging in actions akin to law enforcement, such as conducting raids alongside federal agents.
“The record shows that Task Force 51 acted in ways that are prohibited,” Breyer wrote in his detailed ruling. He noted that witnesses found it hard to tell where the National Guard ended and federal law enforcement began.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, emphasized that this ruling doesn’t permanently ban the federalization of the National Guard. Instead, it highlights what the Guard did once deployed, suggesting they overstepped their authority.
California Governor Gavin Newsom cheered the ruling, stating, “The court sided with democracy and the Constitution. No president can trample a state’s power.” He echoed a sentiment that resonated with many Californians, voicing concerns over federal overreach.
Historically, the use of the National Guard in civilian areas has sparked debates about the balance of power between state and federal authorities. Many argue that it sets a troubling precedent, especially in politically charged times. This ruling adds weight to the discussion, signaling that even in crisis situations, there are legal boundaries that should not be crossed.
With social media buzzing over these developments, many users expressed worry about the militarization of American streets. The debate continues as this situation unfolds, reminding us that the line between security and overreach can sometimes blur.
For further reading on the implications of using the National Guard in civilian roles, check out the [Posse Comitatus Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/posse_comitatus_act) and its historical significance regarding civilian law enforcement.
