In a significant legal decision that could reshape the boundaries of presidential authority, a federal judge on Wednesday halted President Donald Trump’s federalisation of the California National Guard and ordered that the troops be returned to the control of Governor Gavin Newsom. The ruling marks a major development in the months-long clash over the administration’s response to protests in Los Angeles, and it raises larger questions about how far the federal government can go when deploying troops during domestic unrest.

In June, the Trump administration sent thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles following sustained protests tied to the administration’s ramped-up immigration raids in the region. The decision came amid a wave of federal deployments to Democratic-led cities, drawing immediate criticism from civil rights groups and state officials, who argued that the move represented an overreach of federal power.

California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly challenged the deployment in court, but an appellate ruling initially sided with the administration, arguing that the scale of protests justified Trump’s decision to federalise the troops. The dispute simmered for months, even as the protests in Los Angeles gradually subsided.

US District Judge Charles Breyer’s ruling this week dramatically shifts the legal landscape. Breyer concluded that the Trump administration had failed to demonstrate that ongoing demonstrations—or threats to federal immigration agents—warranted continued federal control of California’s Guard units.

According to the judge, more than 300 California National Guard troops remain under federal authority six months after the initial deployment, a duration he suggested exceeded any reasonable emergency justification.

Breyer rejected the administration’s position that courts should avoid reviewing a president’s decision to commandeer state National Guard forces during a declared emergency. In a sharply worded opinion, he wrote:

The judge also noted that the Trump administration appeared to be “effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops” by allocating California personnel to enforcement missions in other states.

The ruling does not take effect immediately. Judge Breyer set an effective date of December 15, giving the Trump administration time to appeal.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the President’s actions, stating:

The administration maintains that the National Guard is essential for protecting federal property, enforcing immigration law, and restoring order in what it describes as high-risk jurisdictions.

This case is part of a broader pattern that has defined 2020: the Trump administration’s frequent use of the National Guard in cities like Portland, Washington DC, and now Los Angeles, often in ways that blur the traditional distinction between federal and state control.

Several of these deployments have been blocked or sharply limited by federal judges, who argue that the administration has exceeded its constitutional authority. State leaders, particularly in Democratic-led states, have voiced concerns that federalising the Guard undermines their ability to manage local crises and sets a troubling precedent for politicized military use domestically.

Governor Newsom filed a new lawsuit in November, arguing that the initial conditions prompting federal intervention—large protests and concerns over crowd control—had significantly diminished. Maintaining federal control months later, he argued, served no legitimate emergency purpose.

At a hearing last Friday, Justice Department lawyers insisted that the troops were still required because federal immigration agents in Los Angeles remained potential targets.

But Judge Breyer appeared unconvinced. “Experience teaches us that crises come and crises go,” he noted, suggesting that temporary emergencies cannot justify indefinite federal occupation of state Guard units.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to a higher court before the December deadline. Legal scholars say the case could become a defining moment for understanding the limits of presidential power over the National Guard—a system intentionally designed to split authority between state governors and the federal government.

As the appeal moves forward, the dispute continues to fuel a broader national conversation about states’ rights, federal overreach, domestic military deployments, and the increasingly political role of the National Guard in modern America.