File photo

 

A federal judge has delivered a stinging verdict against US President Donald Trump, ruling that his deployment of military forces in Los Angeles violated federal law. Judge Charles Breyer slammed Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth for breaching the Posse Comitatus Act, a law prohibiting the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement. This follows the controversial use of thousands of California National Guard members and US Marines in an immigration crackdown.

 

Judge Breyer, after conducting a multi-day trial, pointed out that Trump’s actions were part of a broader plan to create a national police force with the President at its helm. The ruling specifically blocks Trump and Hegseth from using military forces in California for various law enforcement tasks. Breyer’s decision acts as a stern warning, aiming to halt further illegal military deployments across the United States.

 

The ruling has its roots in a lawsuit brought by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who took legal action after Trump federalised members of the state’s militia during protests. Newsom’s office celebrated the judge’s decision, proclaiming it a victory for accountability against the "illegal militarisation" of American cities. Breyer, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, previously ruled that Trump’s actions were unlawful and demanded control of the troops be handed back to the Governor, although this has been challenged in an appeals court.

 

At the centre of Breyer’s ruling is the assertion that the troops were illegally used for law enforcement activities, like setting up barricades and crowd control. He classified the deployment of Task Force 51—National Guard troops and Marines—as an intentional move to enforce federal law, a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge documented that these forces frequently outnumbered federal agents, further asserting their undue influence.

 

Military justice expert Brenner Fissell stressed that while Breyer's ruling legally applies only in California, it will likely serve as a critical reference for future cases. He called it a significant judicial interpretation of a statute rarely scrutinised in recent decades. Should other districts disagree with Breyer’s findings, they’ll need to provide robust justifications for any differing decisions, reported CNN.

 

Though the number of troops has decreased in Los Angeles, the public remains divided on the issue. Polls reveal a majority opposing Trump's military approach to protest responses, especially when state governors object. Views reflect a partisan divide, with most Republicans supporting the President’s tactics, contrasting with the overwhelming opposition from Democrats and independents.

 

This development leaves Trump facing additional legal scrutiny over his controversial use of military force, spotlighting an ongoing national debate about the balance between federal power and state autonomy.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-09-03

 

The Supreme Court will take care of this rogue judge

Judge says administration is ‘willfully’ violating the law

From AP -- Breyer’s ruling accused the Trump administration of "willfully" violating the law, saying it used troops for functions that were barred by their own training materials, refused to “meaningfully coordinate with state and local officials” and “‘coached’” federal law enforcement agencies on the language to use when requesting assistance.

"These actions demonstrate that Defendants knew that they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority," he wrote. "The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armour) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.”

 

https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/03/trumps-use-of-national-guard-during-la-protests-was-illegal-judge-says/

[Another progressive left activist] federal judge has delivered a stinging verdict against US President Donald Trump ...

 

The case Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al., Applicants
v. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al. has already made it to the Supreme Court for a stay of the Appeals Court ruling against the Admin.

 

This case is still at training-wheels stage.

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Interesting that there have been no articles about the huge drop in violent crime in DC since Trump sent the Feds in and that Mayor Bowser has ackowledged this going as far as praising Trump's move.  

That is handled in the Riclag sub-forum

28 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That is handled in the Riclag sub-forum

He's doing a great service, yeah

So what? There is no one left to enforce the decision.

He'll just keep on violating law after law until the America that we knew and loved is finished.

Trump's response when being challenged that his actions are illegal:

 

How Can Anything So Good Be So Bad?

Another lefty activist judge trying to obstruct the democratic will of the people.

Just now, JonnyF said:

Another lefty activist judge trying to obstruct the democratic will of the people.

Explain to me how a President’s Unlawful Executive Order represents ‘the democratic will of the people’?

 

 

You follow the law and are branded radical left by lawless Maga's

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain to me how a President’s Unlawful Executive Order represents ‘the democratic will of the people’?

 

 

 

Who decides it is unlawful?

 

A lefty activist judge. 

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who decides it is unlawful?

 

A lefty activist judge. 

You did read the OP?

 

Now back you your ‘Democratic will of the people’.

 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain to me how a President’s Unlawful Executive Order represents ‘the democratic will of the people’?

 

 

Give it your best shot Jonny.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain to me how a President’s Unlawful Executive Order represents ‘the democratic will of the people’?

 

 

That's part of the modus operandi:  At this point, in that any judge that rules the admin is a leftist rogue judge (even if they were a Republican appointee) and, with enough procedural hurdles, even if the actions are found to be illegal the damage is done and it's too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

5 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

You follow the law and are branded radical left by lawless Maga's

And ANY judge that rules in a way they don't agree with are automatically "Another progressive left activist."

Yawn.

Waiting patiently for the BBO ( Big Beautiful Obituary).

26 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump's response when being challenged that his actions are illegal:

 

How Can Anything So Good Be So Bad?

A great legal scholar🤔!

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You did read the OP?

 

Yes, did you?

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Now back you your ‘Democratic will of the people’.

 

Give it your best shot Jonny.

 

Because he was elected on a mandate of removing illegals. When he tried to do so, the left rioted and now the judge said he couldn't stop them. 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Judge Charles Breyer slammed Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth for breaching the Posse Comitatus Act, a law prohibiting the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement.

 

Gosh.  I don't know...  Looks like a foreign invasion to me.

 

 

 

 

Hopefully this is just the beginning of pushback against a man who loves extrajudicial power, and wants desperately to be an autocrat. Somebody needs to stop him before it's too late for democracy.

 

The high court ruling on the illegality of his tariffs was a major blow, the man's been laying low for a week, he's either incredibly ill or he's psychologically crushed, because it appears that he knows that the Supreme Court will not rule in his favor. Is this the beginning of the decline in his popularity? Many polls would suggest so. 

 

 

Why would anyone use troops against this? 😆

 

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Gosh.  I don't know...  Looks like a foreign invasion to me.

 

 

 

 

The Jan 6 insurrection was worse and non constitutional. 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, did you?

 

 

Because he was elected on a mandate of removing illegals. When he tried to do so, the left rioted and now the judge said he couldn't stop them. 

He wasn’t elected to break the law.

And that’s not what the judge said.

 

So that’s another of your nonsense ‘will of the people’ claims debunked.

 

 

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why would anyone use troops against this? 😆

 

 

Indeed, law snd order is the duty of the DOJ and the police.

 

 

19 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's part of the modus operandi:  At this point, in that any judge that rules the admin is a leftist rogue judge (even if they were a Republican appointee) and, with enough procedural hurdles, even if the actions are found to be illegal the damage is done and it's too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

If true, this clearly shows the path the administration is on.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Indeed, law snd order is the duty of the DOJ and the police.

 

 

 

Not against a foreign invasion. 

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The Jan 6 insurrection was worse and non constitutional. 

 

You'd have thought then, that some people would have been charged for "insurrection".  Yet, nobody was.

 

Jan6 was like an afternoon class field trip gone slightly awry compared to the months of BLM riots mostly peaceful arson and looting.

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Hopefully this is just the beginning of pushback against a man who loves extrajudicial power, and wants desperately to be an autocrat. Somebody needs to stop him before it's too late for democracy.

 

The high court ruling on the illegality of his tariffs was a major blow, the man's been laying low for a week, he's either incredibly ill or he's psychologically crushed, because it appears that he knows that the Supreme Court will not rule in his favor. Is this the beginning of the decline in his popularity? Many polls would suggest so. 

 

 

 

Your syndrome is showing.

 

Of course it is/was illegal.

 

Any American with a basic civics education understands this.

 

"Any American..." excludes six supreme court justices.