Constitutional Crisis: Trump Defies CA Governor in Military Deployment

Paul Riverbank, 8/12/2025Trump's unauthorized military deployment in LA sparks major constitutional showdown in federal court.

The Battle Over Presidential Power Unfolds in San Francisco Court

A landmark legal battle testing the boundaries of presidential authority began Monday in San Francisco, as federal judges wrestle with the aftermath of President Trump's controversial military deployment in Los Angeles last summer.

I've covered constitutional showdowns for decades, but this one stands apart. At its heart lies a fundamental question: Can a president deploy military forces in an American city without the governor's approval? The implications could reshape our understanding of executive power.

The case stems from Trump's June decision to send roughly 4,700 troops – a mix of National Guard and Marines – into Los Angeles streets. Gov. Gavin Newsom never consented. What followed was chaos.

"We're in uncharted territory," remarked Judge Charles Breyer, who's presiding over the three-day hearing. He zeroed in on a crucial point: whether the military essentially became a domestic police force, and if similar deployments might happen again.

The testimony that caught my attention came from Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, the Guard commander in LA. When pressed about the administration's claims of "rebellion," Sherman admitted he'd never heard that term used on the ground. It's a striking disconnect between White House rhetoric and operational reality.

The numbers tell a compelling story. Before troops arrived, local police had made seven riot-related arrests. Ten days after Trump's announcement? Nearly a thousand people behind bars. These aren't just statistics – they represent a fundamental shift in how America handles civil unrest.

Federal officials paint a different picture. In court documents, ICE described Guard members as "essential" protectors of federal property, citing attacks on law enforcement with "rocks, fireworks and other objects." But here's what troubles legal scholars: If troops can deploy without active threats, as Sherman testified, what's to prevent military presence becoming the norm rather than the exception?

California's legal team, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta, didn't hold back. "This was political theater, pure and simple," he argued. "Never in American history have we seen military forces deployed this way." While that's not entirely accurate – think Little Rock in 1957 – the scale and circumstances here are indeed unprecedented.

The timing of this trial feels particularly significant, coming just as Trump signals plans for similar deployments in other cities. About 300 Guard members remain under federal control in California, a reminder that this isn't just about past actions but future precedents.

Judge Breyer faces a complex task. The Ninth Circuit previously sided with Trump, citing the need for "high deference" to presidential decisions about Guard federalization. But the constitutional questions linger. As Wednesday's closing arguments approach, one thing is clear: This case will shape how future presidents wield power on American soil.

For those of us who've spent years analyzing the delicate balance between federal authority and state sovereignty, this trial represents more than a legal dispute. It's a stress test for American democracy itself.

The Battle Over Presidential Power Unfolds in San Francisco CourtA landmark legal battle testing the boundaries of presidential authority began Monday in San Francisco, as federal judges wrestle with the aftermath of President Trump's controversial military deployment in Los Angeles last summer.I've covered constitutional showdowns for decades, but this one stands apart. At its heart lies a fundamental question: Can a president deploy military forces in an American city without the governor's approval? The implications could reshape our understanding of executive power.The case stems from Trump's June decision to send roughly 4,700 troops – a mix of National Guard and Marines – into Los Angeles streets. Gov. Gavin Newsom never consented. What followed was chaos."We're in uncharted territory," remarked Judge Charles Breyer, who's presiding over the three-day hearing. He zeroed in on a crucial point: whether the military essentially became a domestic police force, and if similar deployments might happen again.The testimony that caught my attention came from Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, the Guard commander in LA. When pressed about the administration's claims of "rebellion," Sherman admitted he'd never heard that term used on the ground. It's a striking disconnect between White House rhetoric and operational reality.The numbers tell a compelling story. Before troops arrived, local police had made seven riot-related arrests. Ten days after Trump's announcement? Nearly a thousand people behind bars. These aren't just statistics – they represent a fundamental shift in how America handles civil unrest.Federal officials paint a different picture. In court documents, ICE described Guard members as "essential" protectors of federal property, citing attacks on law enforcement with "rocks, fireworks and other objects." But here's what troubles legal scholars: If troops can deploy without active threats, as Sherman testified, what's to prevent military presence becoming the norm rather than the exception?California's legal team, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta, didn't hold back. "This was political theater, pure and simple," he argued. "Never in American history have we seen military forces deployed this way." While that's not entirely accurate – think Little Rock in 1957 – the scale and circumstances here are indeed unprecedented.The timing of this trial feels particularly significant, coming just as Trump signals plans for similar deployments in other cities. About 300 Guard members remain under federal control in California, a reminder that this isn't just about past actions but future precedents.Judge Breyer faces a complex task. The Ninth Circuit previously sided with Trump, citing the need for "high deference" to presidential decisions about Guard federalization. But the constitutional questions linger. As Wednesday's closing arguments approach, one thing is clear: This case will shape how future presidents wield power on American soil.For those of us who've spent years analyzing the delicate balance between federal authority and state sovereignty, this trial represents more than a legal dispute. It's a stress test for American democracy itself.