• A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
• The ruling prohibits military troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities in California.
• California's governor praised the decision as a victory against federal overreach.
• The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities regarding law enforcement actions.
• The Trump administration is expected to appeal the judge's decision before it takes effect.

A federal court in California ruled that the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard members and active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during protests against immigration enforcement operations was illegal, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the president and his administration systematically used armed soldiers and military vehicles for crowd control and to set up protective perimeters, which contravened the law prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement activities, according to CBS News, Reuters, and The Hill.

Judge Breyer issued a preliminary injunction barring any military troops from engaging in arrests, searches, or crowd control until September 12, 2025, to allow time for the Trump administration to appeal. The judge stated that Trump's actions not only violated the Posse Comitatus Act but also represented a significant overreach of presidential authority, according to HuffPost and ABC News.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who initiated the lawsuit that led to this ruling, expressed relief, stating, “No president is a king — not even Trump,” highlighting the need to preserve state authority and basic civil liberties. Newsom argued that the deployment was not necessary for public safety and that it further inflamed tensions in an already volatile situation, as noted by Los Angeles Times and SFGate.

During the three-day trial, evidence was presented indicating that troops were unnecessary as local law enforcement could adequately handle the situation, further asserting the argument that the deployment was an unlawful exertion of federal power that could compromise democratic principles and civil rights. The ongoing legal battle reflects broader concerns over the militarization of domestic law enforcement, as echoed by various sources including Bloomberg and Reuters.