In a landmark ruling that has ignited fresh debate over presidential authority and states’ rights, a U.S. federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump to return control of the California National Guard to the state government.

The decision was handed down by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who declared the President’s actions as “illegal” and lacking constitutional basis.

The Court’s Verdict

"His actions were illegal ... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith," Judge Breyer wrote in a 36-page opinion released on Thursday (June 12, 2025).

The order, however, was paused until 12 p.m. local time on Friday, giving the White House time to file an appeal — which it did almost immediately. The legal battle could soon be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, observers say.

Governor Newsom Reacts

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory for constitutional balance.

“Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow,” Newsom announced in a televised statement.

“He is not a monarch, he is not a king, and he should stop acting like one,” he said, referring to what he and others view as Trump’s increasing centralisation of authority.

Context: Trump’s Deployment During Protests

President Trump’s controversial decision to federalise the National Guard and send them into Los Angeles came amid widespread protests against federal immigration raids ordered by his administration.

The move, taken against the objections of Governor Newsom, was unprecedented — the first such act by a sitting U.S. President since 1965.

Trump claimed the deployment was necessary because Los Angeles was “burning” and the protests had spiralled into chaos.

However, local authorities, including the Los Angeles Police Department, disputed those claims. They reported that while there were isolated incidents of violence, including the burning of cars, the protests were mostly peaceful and limited to specific areas of the city.

Legal Reasoning in the Ruling

Judge Breyer criticised the President for mischaracterising the nature of the protests, stating that the unrest fell “far short” of a rebellion, which is the legal justification for federal military intervention under the Insurrection Act.

“There was no evidence of organised, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence during the protests,” Breyer wrote.

He further added, “Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue — the immigration raids.”

First Amendment Concerns Raised

Judge Breyer also raised serious concerns about civil liberties, warning that Trump’s approach could set a dangerous precedent.

He said he was “troubled” by the implication that protest against the federal government — a core right protected under the First Amendment — could be used as grounds to declare a rebellion.

This comment underscores growing anxiety among civil rights groups that peaceful dissent is being increasingly criminalised under the current administration.

Deployment of Active-Duty Marines

In addition to the Guard deployment, Trump also sent 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. This was seen by critics as a further overreach, fuelling accusations that the President was using federal forces to suppress political opposition under the guise of law and order.

White House and Political Reactions

The White House had no immediate official response to the ruling, though aides confirmed that an appeal had been filed.

Trump, speaking at an event marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, reiterated that his administration would do “whatever is necessary” to protect the country, including deploying forces to states if required.

But his remarks stopped short of addressing the court ruling directly.

A Rare Legal Precedent

This ruling marks a rare legal challenge to a President’s use of the Insurrection Act and could reshape the interpretation of federal military authority in civilian matters.

Legal experts say it could become a defining Supreme Court case that tests the limits of executive power in contrast with state sovereignty, particularly when it comes to internal security.

Broader Political Implications

The incident further intensifies the already charged political atmosphere ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections in the United States.

While Trump’s supporters argue that he is ensuring national security and rule of law, his critics view the deployment as authoritarian overreach designed to stoke fear and consolidate power.

Governor Newsom, who is seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, may use this legal victory to bolster his image as a defender of civil liberties and federalism.

What Happens Next

The next key moment in the legal process will be Friday noon, when Judge Breyer’s pause on the order expires. If the appeal does not result in an emergency injunction, Trump will be compelled to hand back control of the Guard.

All eyes will now turn to the federal appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, which could take up the case on constitutional grounds.

Regardless of the outcome, the ruling has already deepened divisions between federal and state governments and brought into sharp focus the delicate balance of power in a democracy under pressure.

The Upcoming IPOs in this week and coming weeks are Eppeltone Engineers, Aten Papers, Patil Automation, Oswal Pumps, Samay Projects Services, Monolithisch India.

The Current active IPO are Jainik Power Cables, Sacheerome Limited.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst.