In a courtroom showdown that could define state-federal power dynamics, a federal judge has sided with President Donald Trump over California Governor Gavin Newsom in a heated dispute over National Guard deployment.
Breitbart reported that Judge Charles Breyer turned down Newsom’s urgent plea for a Temporary Restraining Order to halt Trump’s order sending 4,000 California National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles.
The chaos in Los Angeles began with rioters hurling objects at law enforcement, torching Waymo self-driving taxis near the Metropolitan Detention Center, and defacing federal buildings with anti-ICE slogans during protests over immigration raids on June 8, 2025.
Judge Breyer Stands Firm on Federal Authority
Following the unrest, Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 Guardsmen to the city, a number that later swelled to 4,000, prompting Newsom to cry foul over what he saw as federal overreach.
Newsom’s lawsuit, filed soon after Trump’s order, argued that deploying the Guard without a formal request from the governor undermines the bedrock principle of civilian governance over military action.
“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is that our people are governed by civil, not military, rule,” the complaint insisted.
Well, that’s a fine sentiment, but when rioters are setting autonomous cars ablaze, perhaps a stronger hand is warranted.
On June 10, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., Newsom and the State of California filed an emergency motion to block the deployment, hoping for a swift judicial slapdown of Trump’s directive.
Judge Breyer, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, didn’t bite, denying the request for an immediate restraint and instead giving the Trump administration breathing room to respond.
“Defendants requested 24 hours to file a response brief,” Breyer noted in his ruling. That’s hardly a stall tactic; it’s just due process, something even progressive champions should appreciate when the shoe’s on the other foot.
Courtroom Drama Set to Continue
The court also scheduled a full hearing for June 12, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., where both sides will hash out the deeper issues in open court, promising more sparks in this state-versus-federal showdown.
Meanwhile, Newsom’s team fired off a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, with Legal Affairs Secretary David Sapp demanding the Guard be returned to state control.
“We ask that you immediately rescind your order,” Sapp wrote. Nice try, but it seems federal authority isn’t backing down just yet.
Newsom’s public stance, echoed in a post on X, doubled down on the notion that there was no need for federal boots on the ground in Los Angeles, painting Trump’s move as an unnecessary power grab.
Let’s not forget the backdrop: rioters didn’t just protest; they vandalized federal property and targeted law enforcement, turning parts of downtown Los Angeles into a battleground over immigration policy disputes.
This isn’t just about who controls the National Guard—it’s about whether states can dictate terms while cities burn, or if the federal government must step in to restore order when local leadership hesitates. Turns out, actions—or inaction—have consequences, and Trump’s administration seems intent on proving that point.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Sophia Turner
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://patriotmomdigest.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.
