Everything is litigated these days. But at the end of the tunnel is justice.
And now legal experts handed Trump a surefire win that Democrats are freaking out about.
Strengthening Federal Authority to Combat Crime and Illegal Immigration
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June 2025 violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement without specific exceptions. The deployment, aimed at supporting immigration enforcement amid protests, involved troops setting up perimeters, controlling crowds, and accompanying federal agents on operations like raids on marijuana farms and “Operation Excalibur” in MacArthur Park.
Breyer, a Clinton appointee, argued that these actions constituted illegal law enforcement, rejecting the administration’s claim that troops were merely protecting federal personnel and property. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily paused Breyer’s ruling, and legal experts suggest Trump’s approach may ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming his authority to address pressing issues like illegal immigration and urban crime.
Trump’s strategy reflects a robust use of executive power to restore order in cities facing challenges from illegal immigration and crime. By federalizing the California National Guard under Title 10, Section 12406, Trump aimed to protect federal operations and ensure public safety, a move aligned with his broader agenda to secure borders and reduce urban violence. The administration’s actions in Los Angeles, and plans for cities like Chicago, New York, and Baltimore, demonstrate a commitment to leveraging federal resources when local governments fail to act decisively.
Legal Defense of Presidential Prerogative
Legal experts argue that Trump’s deployment aligns with the president’s constitutional authority to protect federal interests, particularly in contexts of public unrest. Attorney Gerard Filitti of the Lawfare Project criticized Breyer’s ruling, stating, “The judge treated ordinary crowd control as if it were unlawful ‘law enforcement.’ That’s simply not the law. The Guard wasn’t arresting people or running police investigations — they were stabilizing the situation so ICE could do its job.”
Filitti’s point clarifies that the National Guard’s role was to enable federal agents to execute immigration laws, not to supplant local police, a distinction Breyer’s ruling overlooked. This interpretation supports Trump’s position that his actions fall within exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, such as protecting federal functions, and aligns with historical precedents where presidents have used military forces to address domestic crises.
Andrew Stoltman, an adjunct law professor at Northwestern University, predicted that the Supreme Court, which has frequently supported Trump in 2025 rulings, will likely validate his authority.
“I think ultimately he will be given the legal green light to do so,” Stoltman said, noting the Court’s tendency to grant presidents broad deference in military matters. This deference is rooted in the Constitution’s designation of the president as commander-in-chief, empowering Trump to deploy federalized troops to safeguard national interests, especially when local resistance hampers federal enforcement. The Ninth Circuit’s pause on Breyer’s order signals judicial skepticism of overly restrictive interpretations, bolstering Trump’s case as it heads toward higher courts.
Proven Success and Local Resistance
Trump’s deployment of federal forces, including the National Guard, in Washington, D.C., offers a model for his Los Angeles strategy, yielding tangible results. D.C. has seen a 40% drop in carjackings and a 27% reduction in violent crime compared to the previous year, with Mayor Muriel Bowser formalizing cooperation with federal agencies. This success contrasts with resistance from Democratic leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who have challenged Trump’s authority.
Newsom’s lawsuit, which led to Breyer’s ruling, and Pritzker’s opposition to potential Chicago deployments reflect a pattern of blue-state obstructionism that critics argue prioritizes political posturing over public safety. Stoltman suggested that leaders like Pritzker are “making a big mistake” by rejecting federal assistance in cities with persistent crime issues, such as Chicago’s high murder rate.
Filitti warned that upholding Breyer’s ruling could set a precedent allowing states to block federal law enforcement by refusing cooperation, undermining the Constitution’s balance of power.
“That’s not how the Constitution works, and it’s not how you keep Americans safe,” he said. Trump’s approach, by contrast, prioritizes federal supremacy in addressing illegal immigration and crime, ensuring that federal laws are enforced even in resistant jurisdictions. His use of Title 10, rather than the Insurrection Act, demonstrates a measured approach, avoiding broader emergency powers while still achieving enforcement goals.
Addressing Immediate Threats, Not Root Causes
While critics argue Trump’s deployments target Democratic strongholds and overlook structural issues like understaffed police forces or lenient prosecutorial policies, supporters contend that immediate action is necessary to curb illegal immigration and violent crime.
Zack Smith of the Heritage Foundation noted that D.C.’s success demonstrates the effectiveness of a strong federal presence, stating, “One of the most effective ways to combat violent crime is to have police officers on the street who are empowered to appropriately do their jobs.” Smith acknowledged that long-term solutions require addressing systemic issues but argued that Trump’s strategy provides critical short-term relief, particularly in cities overwhelmed by illegal immigration’s strain on resources.
Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement, as seen in Los Angeles, directly tackles the public safety risks posed by unchecked illegal immigration, which can exacerbate local crime and overburden communities. By deploying the National Guard to support ICE operations, Trump ensures that federal priorities, such as deporting illegal immigrants, are not thwarted by local protests or sanctuary policies. As the Supreme Court considers this issue, its recent pro-Trump rulings suggest a likelihood of affirming his authority, reinforcing his ability to act decisively to protect American cities and borders.
