A federal judge orders the return of control to California, ruling that Trump overreached in sending the national guard to Los Angeles.

According to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's temporary restraining order, which was issued Thursday and goes into effect at noon on Friday, Trump's action was unlawful under the Tenth Amendment and went beyond his legal power under federal law. 

A Struggle for Authority—and the Constitution

A legal and highly political question lies at the core of the decision: who actually has the authority to summon the National Guard?

Governors usually have that authority. In this instance, the deployment was categorically opposed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who described it as an outrageous overreach. His government filed a lawsuit to stop the president's action, claiming that collaboration with state officials is still necessary under Title 10, the federal statute that Trump used to activate the troops.

Judge Breyer sided with the state in a scathingly worded judgment, claiming that the president had circumvented important legal protections. Breyer wrote, "We are dealing with the president exercising his authority." Naturally, the president has a limited amount of power. That is how King George differs from a constitutional government.

Tension in the air, troops on the streets

Tensions were high in Los Angeles and elsewhere at the time of the deployment. A broad immigration crackdown that included arrests at locations like Home Depot parking lots sparked protests in the streets, igniting anxiety in immigrant communities.

Photos of the military providing protection alongside immigration inspectors rapidly appeared, despite the administration's insistence that the Guard was solely present to defend federal buildings. About 500 members of the Guard have already received training to support federal immigration operations, according to Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who leads Task Force 51.

That was deemed an escalation by Governor Newsom. He warned that the Guard's continued involvement in immigration enforcement would further exacerbate public emotion and endanger both troops and civilians, so he filed an emergency application asking the court to stop it.

The Repercussions on Politics

The case was rejected by the Trump administration as a "crass political stunt threatening American lives." However, the case highlights a larger trend of political brinkmanship and federal overreach, according to critics.

In a time when the distinction between political theater and domestic security has frequently felt dangerously hazy, the decision provides a unique and symbolic check on executive power.

It is unclear exactly what will happen next on the ground in California. There are no Marines in Los Angeles, despite the fact that they are also allegedly authorized for deployment. Guard engagement with demonstrators has been minimal thus far, but the judge's directive could alter that.

An Increasing Protest Wave

What started out as local discontent has swept the nation like wildfire. From Boston to Seattle, protests have broken out, gathering hundreds of people who believe that the militarization of immigration enforcement is unfair and unwarranted.

Ultimately, this event might be more remembered for what it exposed—a growing struggle for federal power, state autonomy, and the nation's infamously contentious immigration debate—than for the deployment itself.

The legal battle is still ongoing. However, California is once again in control for the time being.