Gavin Newsom’s legal attack on President Trump’s National Guard deployment in Los Angeles has tripped over its own feet.
The Daily Caller reported that Newsom tried to block federal troops sent to quell riots, but his case is crumbling faster than a San Francisco sidewalk. A district court’s bold ruling against Trump now hangs by a thread, with the Ninth Circuit stepping in to keep the Guard on duty.
Newsom’s lawsuit targeted Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard to restore order in Los Angeles amid widespread unrest.
Last Thursday, Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, issued a 36-page decision declaring Trump’s move illegal, citing overstepped authority and a Tenth Amendment violation. The Ninth Circuit quickly paused Breyer’s ruling, ensuring troops stay put until at least June 17, 2025, when the next hearing looms.
Trump leaned on a federal statute allowing the president to federalize the National Guard during rebellions or foreign threats.
Breyer, playing armchair general, defined the statute’s vague terms himself and ruled Trump missed the mark. Legal scholars are already rolling their eyes at the judge’s overreach.
“I think the court reached out to decide some novel and complex constitutional questions,” said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. That’s a polite way of saying Breyer’s ruling is a legal house of cards. The Supreme Court, which has never tackled these issues, is likely to swat this down.
Breyer argued Trump’s notification to Newsom was insufficient, despite multiple phone calls and orders routed through California’s National Guard commander.
Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor, called this nitpicking “harmless error.” He’s right—bureaucratic box-checking shouldn’t undo a president’s call to action.
“Even if you buy the argument that the process was not followed precisely, it is a harmless error,” Moreno told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Splitting hairs over paperwork while Los Angeles burns is peak progressive posturing. The Constitution doesn’t mandate a PowerPoint presentation before deploying troops.
Moreno didn’t stop there, slamming Breyer’s hubris: “An unelected federal judge sitting in San Francisco asserting he can second-guess the military decisions of the Commander in Chief.” That’s a zinger that hits home—judges aren’t elected to play four-star general. Expect Breyer’s ruling to crash and burn on appeal.
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith called the opinion “slapdash” in a Substack post. He criticized Breyer’s selective definition of “rebellion” and lack of deference to Trump’s authority. When even Harvard’s finest are dunking on you, it’s time to rethink your strategy.
“I was not persuaded by the judge’s second-guessing of the president,” Goldsmith added. Breyer’s attempt to micromanage the White House from a San Francisco bench is the kind of judicial overreach conservatives have long warned about. It’s less law than activism in robes.
The Ninth Circuit’s pause means National Guard troops remain in Los Angeles, with a hearing set for June 17, 2025.
Meanwhile, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman confirmed on June 13, 2025, that hundreds of Marines have also been deployed to the city, per The New York Times. Trump’s not backing down, and neither are the boots on the ground.
Newsom’s lawsuit, while bold, seems destined for the legal dumpster. Breyer’s ruling lacks the constitutional heft to survive higher scrutiny, and the Ninth Circuit’s swift intervention signals skepticism. California’s governor might want to focus on his state’s problems instead of picking fights he can’t win.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, noted on X that Trump has plenty of authority to send federal personnel to protect government assets. “The Administration will be able to maintain a significant force on the ground,” Turley wrote. Newsom’s grandstanding won’t change that reality.
Breyer’s claim that Trump violated the Tenth Amendment by federalizing the Guard is a stretch that won’t stick.
The federal statute Trump invoked is deliberately broad, giving the president leeway to act decisively. Newsom’s attempt to paint this as a states’ rights issue feels more like politics than principle.
