A significant legal decision was handed down on June 12, 2025, when a federal judge ruled that the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles by former President Donald Trump was unlawful, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal and political tensions between California and the federal government. The ruling found that the deployment violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the federal government’s ability to commandeer state-controlled resources without the state’s consent.
The case, which has drawn considerable attention due to the heightened political climate surrounding immigration enforcement and federal law enforcement activities, is seen as a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s heavy-handed approach to immigration control. It follows a series of controversial actions that have led to deep divisions between the federal government and state leadership, particularly in California, which has taken a strong stance against federal immigration policies.
The judge’s order mandated that control of the California National Guard be immediately returned to the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, by noon on June 13, 2025. This marks a significant win for Newsom and other state officials who have repeatedly clashed with the federal government over the use of military and law enforcement resources for purposes they view as politically motivated.
At the heart of the ruling was the assertion that the Trump administration’s deployment violated the principle of state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, and the court found that the administration’s actions undermined this foundational principle.
This decision comes at a time of increasing national protests and debates about the role of federal agencies in state matters. Immigration raids, often conducted with heavy involvement from federal law enforcement, have sparked widespread backlash in states like California, which has long positioned itself as a sanctuary state for immigrants. The state’s political leaders have repeatedly challenged the Trump administration’s policies, arguing that they are harmful, unnecessary, and in violation of state law.
Governor Gavin Newsom was quick to praise the ruling, calling it a victory for California’s sovereignty and an affirmation of the state’s right to determine its own path in matters of immigration and law enforcement. “This decision reaffirms the fundamental rights of our state and our people,” Newsom said in a statement following the ruling. “The National Guard belongs to California and must be used in the best interest of our residents, not as a pawn in federal immigration battles.”
Newsom’s office has also been vocal about the need for California to have autonomy in managing its resources, particularly in the face of policies that many state leaders view as overreaching. The ruling gives the state more control over its National Guard forces, which had been partially deployed in Los Angeles as part of Trump’s broader strategy to crack down on illegal immigration.
The court’s decision adds another layer to the ongoing legal skirmishes between California and the federal government, particularly the Trump administration. In the past, the state has filed numerous lawsuits challenging federal immigration policies, including the rescinding of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the so-called “public charge” rule, which sought to limit the ability of immigrants to gain permanent residency based on their use of public benefits. These lawsuits reflect the broader ideological divide between the federal government and progressive states like California.
This ruling also highlights the complexities of using military and National Guard forces for domestic law enforcement purposes. The National Guard has historically been under the authority of state governors, but in recent years, its use has become a point of contention as former President Trump and his administration sought to involve the military in immigration enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and in states with large immigrant populations.
In addition to the legal implications, the ruling also has significant political consequences. It serves as a rebuke to the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce its immigration policies through aggressive tactics that many see as authoritarian. It also represents a clear challenge to the notion of federal supremacy, asserting that state leaders have the right to control their own military resources, particularly when it comes to domestic issues like law enforcement.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for future deployments of the National Guard and the limits of federal power in state matters. If upheld, the ruling could embolden other states to push back against what they perceive as federal overreach in areas such as immigration enforcement, disaster response, and military presence.
In the aftermath of the decision, political observers expect the Trump administration’s allies to attempt to appeal the ruling, arguing that the federal government should have the ability to deploy military resources in any state to enforce national immigration laws. However, for now, the immediate impact of the court’s decision is clear: the California National Guard will return to state control, and the legal battle over the Trump administration’s immigration policies will continue to unfold.
As tensions between the state of California and the federal government remain high, this legal victory for Governor Newsom and state officials underscores the continuing division in the U.S. over immigration policy and the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
