US President Donald Trump is facing legal scrutiny over his recent deployment of National Guard troops to assist in law enforcement activities. This move raises questions about compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The issue is currently being examined in a three-day trial in California, where a judge is assessing whether the Trump administration overstepped its legal authority.
On June 7, 2023, protests erupted in Los Angeles in response to immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Demonstrators took to the streets after ICE officers arrested individuals at various locations, including workplaces and bus stops. Tensions surrounding Trump’s immigration policies have intensified over the past several months, prompting the federal government to federalize the California National Guard.
Despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local leaders, the Trump administration dispatched National Guard members to Los Angeles to support federal operations. These troops accompanied ICE agents during raids and provided security around federal buildings, including those housing detention centers. According to the Pentagon, while most of the National Guard troops have since departed, approximately 250 remain on duty.
The central question before the court pertains to whether the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes. The act typically prohibits military involvement in domestic policing, except when the National Guard is under federal control, as was the case here.
Judge Charles Breyer has expressed concerns about the legality of deploying the National Guard in this manner. He noted that the protests did not rise to the level of “rebellion,” a condition under which the president could claim authority to mobilize troops under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The judge previously ruled that the administration’s actions may have infringed upon the 10th Amendment, which delineates the powers of state and federal governments.
In court, Major General Scott Sherman, Deputy Commanding General for the National Guard, testified that troops had a role in protecting federal property and could take certain law enforcement actions if they deemed it necessary for safety. However, this assertion raises further questions about the appropriateness of their deployment.
Ernesto Santacruz Jr., the Los Angeles field office director for ICE, argued in court that the presence of the National Guard was crucial for managing the protests, especially given local law enforcement’s perceived slow response. He stated, “The presence of the National Guard and Marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs.”
The implications of this trial extend beyond California. Legal experts, including Steve Vladeck from Georgetown University Law Center, suggest that while the ruling may be narrowly focused on the specific circumstances in Los Angeles, it could set a precedent for how the National Guard is utilized in other states. Trump has hinted at the possibility of deploying troops in additional cities, including Washington, DC and Chicago.
In Washington, Trump announced a federal takeover of the city’s police force, citing a need to address rising crime. He has claimed that the situation in the capital is deteriorating, although local officials, including Mayor Muriel Bowser, have reported a decline in crime rates following a previous spike.
The legal proceedings surrounding the National Guard’s deployment remain in flux, with ongoing debates about the enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act. As the trial progresses, its outcomes could shape the future of military involvement in domestic law enforcement and influence the Trump administration’s strategies moving forward.
