>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Newsom, who has openly clashed with Trump in the past, filed an emergency request for an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the federal deployment on Tuesday. After initially denying the motion, Judge Breyer reversed course and granted the TRO on Thursday following a hastily scheduled emergency hearing.
In his 36-page ruling, Judge Breyer did not mince words, slamming Trump’s use of emergency powers and declaring his actions unconstitutional.
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,” the judge wrote.
Even more shockingly, the judge claimed the riots unfolding in Los Angeles — which involved destruction of property and violence against officers — were protected under the First Amendment.
This jaw-dropping ruling has immediate consequences. According to the court’s directive:
- “Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.”
- “Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.”
- “The Court further STAYS this order until noon on June 13, 2025.”
- “Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.”
Critics are already blasting the decision as another example of activist judges working to undermine law and order while shielding violent demonstrators from consequences.
“This is a textbook example of liberal judicial overreach,” said a senior GOP aide. “While cities burn, this judge is more concerned with procedure than with public safety.”
Supporters of President Trump argue that the federal government has both the duty and authority to protect federal property and maintain order when state officials refuse to act decisively.
The ruling also raises broader constitutional questions. Can a President step in when a state fails to stop widespread violence? Or must he stand by while elected officials play politics with public safety?
For now, California’s National Guard returns to Newsom’s control — and Los Angeles continues to reel from days of unrest. The legal battle is far from over, but one thing is clear: President Trump’s fight for law and order just hit a major roadblock from the bench.
Stay tuned.
