Fact Check: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority.

Fact Check: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer Ruled the Guard Deployment Illegal

What We Know

On June 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard was illegal. Breyer stated that the president's actions "both exceeded the scope of his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Washington Post, AP News). This ruling came amidst protests in Los Angeles related to federal immigration raids, which had prompted the deployment of National Guard troops to assist federal law enforcement (New York Times).

Judge Breyer's order specifically required the return of control of the National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had challenged the legality of the deployment (NPR). The ruling was significant as it addressed the balance of power between state and federal authorities, emphasizing that the federal government cannot unilaterally assume control over state military resources without proper justification (Democracy Docket).

Analysis

The ruling by Judge Breyer is grounded in constitutional law, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which delineates the powers reserved to the states. By asserting that Trump's deployment of the National Guard was illegal, Breyer highlighted the limitations of presidential authority in domestic matters, especially when it comes to military involvement in civilian law enforcement (PBS).

The credibility of Judge Breyer's ruling is bolstered by his background as a former Watergate prosecutor and his judicial experience. His decision was not merely a legal technicality but a broader commentary on the implications of militarizing civilian spaces, which he argued could exacerbate tensions and lead to violence (Time).

The Trump administration's immediate appeal and characterization of Breyer's ruling as an "extraordinary intrusion" on presidential authority reflects a contentious legal and political landscape. The administration argued that the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property, framing the situation as a matter of national security (CNN). However, Breyer's ruling directly challenged this narrative, asserting that the protests did not constitute a "rebellion" and that local law enforcement was capable of managing the situation without federal military intervention (AP News).

Conclusion

The claim that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Guard deployment illegal, violating the Tenth Amendment and exceeding Trump's statutory authority, is True. The ruling underscores the legal limitations of presidential power in deploying state National Guard units for domestic purposes, reaffirming the constitutional framework that governs the relationship between state and federal authorities.

Sources

1. Trump can keep California National Guard deployed for ...
2. Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ...
3. Trump's Use of National Guard in Limbo After Court Rulings
4. Appeals court blocks earlier ruling, allows Trump to ...
5. Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Seizure of California ...
6. Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ...
7. Judge Rules Trump's National Guard Deployment 'Illegal'
8. Appeals court pauses ruling requiring Trump to return ...