Fact Check: "A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was unlawful, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked this ruling two hours later."
What We Know
On June 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was unlawful, stating that it violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded the president's statutory authority (source-1). The judge's order mandated that control of the National Guard troops be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom (source-2). However, just hours later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on Breyer's ruling, allowing the Trump administration to maintain control of the National Guard troops while the case was reviewed (source-3).
The context of this ruling involved protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids, which had escalated tensions in the city. Judge Breyer emphasized that the protests did not constitute a rebellion, thus questioning the legality of Trump's justification for deploying the National Guard under Title 10, which allows such action during instances of rebellion or insurrection (source-4).
Analysis
The claim that a federal judge ruled Trump's deployment of the National Guard unlawful, followed by a temporary block from the Ninth Circuit, is substantiated by multiple credible sources. Judge Breyer's ruling explicitly stated that Trump's actions were illegal and that the National Guard should be returned to state control (source-5). The Ninth Circuit's swift response to stay this ruling demonstrates the ongoing legal battle surrounding the deployment and the complexities of federal versus state authority in such matters (source-6).
The sources reporting on this event are generally reliable, including major news outlets like the Associated Press, Reuters, and BBC, which have established track records for factual reporting. The legal implications of the case are significant, as they touch on constitutional interpretations of state versus federal powers, particularly regarding the deployment of the National Guard (source-7). The judge's ruling and the subsequent appeal highlight the contentious nature of Trump's actions and the differing perspectives on federal authority in domestic matters.
However, it is important to note that the Trump administration argued that the deployment was necessary for national security and to protect federal officials, framing the legal challenge as an overreach by the judiciary into executive powers (source-8). This perspective reflects a broader political narrative that often accompanies discussions of military and law enforcement actions in civilian contexts.
Conclusion
The claim that a federal judge ruled Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was unlawful, and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked this ruling two hours later, is True. The sequence of events is well-documented, with a clear legal basis for both the initial ruling and the subsequent appeal. The situation underscores ongoing tensions between federal authority and state governance, particularly in the context of military deployments.
Sources
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ...
- Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. ...
- Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National ...
- Appeals court temporarily lifts judge's block on Trump's ...
- Appeals court lets Trump keep National Guard in Los ...
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ...
- Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Seizure of California ...
- Trump administration can keep control of California ...
