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."
What We Know
On June 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a ruling stating that President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California was illegal. The judge concluded that the deployment both violated the Tenth Amendment, which delineates the powers of state and federal governments, and exceeded Trump's statutory authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Breyer emphasized that the situation in Los Angeles did not constitute a rebellion, which is one of the limited circumstances under which the president can federalize National Guard troops (AP News, Washington Post, NPR).
Breyer's ruling was part of a broader legal challenge initiated by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who sought to block the federal government's use of the National Guard for immigration enforcement during protests against federal immigration raids (AP News, Democracy Docket). The judge's order applied specifically to the National Guard and did not include the Marines that were also deployed to the area (AP News).
Analysis
The ruling by Judge Breyer has been characterized as a significant legal intervention in the balance of power between state and federal authorities. By asserting that the deployment was illegal, Breyer highlighted the constitutional limitations on presidential power, particularly regarding domestic military use. His assertion that the protests did not meet the threshold of a rebellion is critical, as it directly challenges the justification for the federal deployment under Title 10, which allows for such actions only under specific conditions (NPR, Democracy Docket).
The credibility of the sources reporting on this ruling is strong. Major news outlets like the Associated Press, Washington Post, and NPR have extensive editorial standards and fact-checking processes. They reported on the ruling with consistent details, indicating a high level of reliability. Furthermore, the legal context provided by these sources aligns with established interpretations of the Tenth Amendment and federal authority concerning the National Guard (AP News, Washington Post, NPR).
However, the Trump administration's response to the ruling, which characterized it as an "extraordinary intrusion" on presidential authority, reflects a broader political narrative that seeks to frame the situation as a matter of national security. This perspective, while politically motivated, does not alter the legal findings of Judge Breyer, which were grounded in constitutional law (AP News, Washington Post).
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 is well-documented and supported by multiple credible sources, all of which confirm the judge's findings and the legal reasoning behind them. The implications of this ruling underscore the ongoing tensions between state and federal powers, particularly in the context of military deployment and civil rights.
