Gavin Newsom’s legal jab at President Trump’s National Guard deployment in Los Angeles has tripped over its own feet. The California governor, a Democrat, tried to block federal troops sent to quell riots, but his case is crumbling faster than a San Francisco sidewalk. A district court’s bold ruling against Trump now hangs by a thread, with the Ninth Circuit stepping in to keep the Guard on duty.
Newsom’s lawsuit targeted Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard to restore order in Los Angeles amid widespread unrest. On June 12, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, issued a 36-page decision declaring Trump’s move illegal, citing overstepped authority and a Tenth Amendment violation. The Ninth Circuit quickly paused Breyer’s ruling, ensuring troops stay put until at least June 17, 2025, when the next hearing looms.
Trump leaned on a federal statute allowing the president to federalize the National Guard during rebellions or foreign threats. Breyer, playing armchair general, defined the statute’s vague terms himself and ruled Trump missed the mark. Legal scholars are already rolling their eyes at the judge’s overreach.
Judge Breyer’s Ruling Sparks Debate
“I think the court reached out to decide some novel and complex constitutional questions,” said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. That’s a polite way of saying Breyer’s ruling is a legal house of cards. The Supreme Court, which has never tackled these issues, is likely to swat this down.
Breyer argued Trump’s notification to Newsom was insufficient, despite multiple phone calls and orders routed through California’s National Guard commander. Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor, called this nitpicking “harmless error.” He’s right—bureaucratic box-checking shouldn’t undo a president’s call to action.
“Even if you buy the argument that the process was not followed precisely, it is a harmless error,” Moreno told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Splitting hairs over paperwork while Los Angeles burns is peak progressive posturing. The Constitution doesn’t mandate a PowerPoint presentation before deploying troops.
Legal Experts Predict Reversal
Moreno didn’t stop there, slamming Breyer’s hubris: “An unelected federal judge sitting in San Francisco asserting he can second-guess the military decisions of the Commander in Chief.” That’s a zinger that hits home—judges aren’t elected to play four-star general. Expect Breyer’s ruling to crash and burn on appeal.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith called the opinion “slapdash” in a Substack post. He criticized Breyer’s selective definition of “rebellion” and lack of deference to Trump’s authority. When even Harvard’s finest are dunking on you, it’s time to rethink your strategy.
“I was not persuaded by the judge’s second-guessing of the president,” Goldsmith added. Breyer’s attempt to micromanage the White House from a San Francisco bench is the kind of judicial overreach conservatives have long warned about. It’s less law than activism in robes.
National Guard Stays, Marines Arrive
The Ninth Circuit’s pause means National Guard troops remain in Los Angeles, with a hearing set for June 17, 2025. Meanwhile, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman confirmed on June 13, 2025, that hundreds of Marines have also been deployed to the city, per The New York Times. Trump’s not backing down, and neither are the boots on the ground.
Newsom’s lawsuit, while bold, seems destined for the legal dumpster. Breyer’s ruling lacks the constitutional heft to survive higher scrutiny, and the Ninth Circuit’s swift intervention signals skepticism. California’s governor might want to focus on his state’s problems instead of picking fights he can’t win.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, noted on X that Trump has plenty of authority to send federal personnel to protect government assets. “The Administration will be able to maintain a significant force on the ground,” Turley wrote. Newsom’s grandstanding won’t change that reality.
Trump’s Authority Holds Firm
Breyer’s claim that Trump violated the Tenth Amendment by federalizing the Guard is a stretch that won’t stick. The federal statute Trump invoked is deliberately broad, giving the president leeway to act decisively. Newsom’s attempt to paint this as a states’ rights issue feels more like politics than principle.
Los Angeles needs order, not courtroom drama, yet Newsom’s lawsuit prioritizes headlines over solutions. Conservatives see this as another example of progressive elites obstructing common-sense governance. Still, empathy for California’s residents caught in the unrest should guide the broader conversation.
Trump’s deployment, backed by federal law, reflects a president unafraid to wield his authority to restore calm. While Newsom’s concerns about process deserve a fair hearing, they don’t justify paralyzing a response to chaos. The Ninth Circuit’s pause is a lifeline for sanity—and a warning shot to judicial overreach.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Benjamin Clark
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://americandigest.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
