💥 SHOCKING REVERSAL ROCKS WASHINGTON: FEDERAL JUDGE DROPS THE HAMMER ON TRUMP — ORDER TO SEND TROOPS HOME IGNITES A FURIOUS POWER STRUGGLE AND BEHIND-THE-SCENES PANIC INSIDE BOTH CAMPS ⚡

SAN FRANCISCO — A senior federal judge in California issued a sweeping rebuke of the Trump administration on Wednesday, ordering it to relinquish control of the California National Guard and sharply rejecting the government’s claim that the president may indefinitely federalize state troops without judicial review.

The ruling, handed down by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, grants a preliminary injunction sought by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who argued that President Trump’s continued federalization of the Guard violated constitutional principles of federalism and far exceeded the authority granted under 10 U.S.C. §12406.

Judge Breyer agreed — and did so in striking terms.

“For six months, the defendants have retained command of approximately 300 members of the California National Guard,” he wrote, “despite no evidence that the execution of federal law has been impeded in any meaningful way.”

The administration had justified its October extension of federal control by asserting that “violence” and “civil disturbances” in Los Angeles posed an ongoing threat. But Judge Breyer found that claim factually unsupported, calling the asserted need for continued federalization “a fiction.”

Under his order, federal officials are temporarily enjoined from deploying California Guardsmen in Los Angeles and must return control of the force to Governor Newsom. The judge stayed his own ruling until Monday to allow Trump administration lawyers to appeal to the Ninth Circuit — a step they are widely expected to take, having twice challenged earlier rulings from Breyer in the same dispute.

An Unusually Forceful Rejection of Presidential Power

Judge Breyer, the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, opened his 20-page opinion by invoking the Founders’ design of a government built on checks and balances — and warned that the administration was demanding something very different.

“Defendants make clear,” he wrote, “that the only check they want is a blank one.”

At the core of the dispute is §12406, a Reconstruction-era statute allowing a president to federalize a state militia when ordinary forces are “unable to execute the laws.” The Justice Department argued that once a president lawfully federalizes a state National Guard, any subsequent extensions of that federalization are entirely unreviewable by the courts, no matter the circumstances or duration.

Breyer rejected that argument outright — calling it “shocking.”

“Adopting the defendants’ interpretation,” he warned, “would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as the initial federalization was lawful.”

Such a scenario, he continued, would “validate the founders’ widespread fear of a national standing army” threatening state sovereignty and individual liberty.

To emphasize the point, Breyer quoted directly from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison, on the need for internal checks within government to prevent abuses of power.

No Evidence of Current Unrest, Judge Says

Even if the administration’s legal interpretation were accepted, Breyer found the factual record fatally lacking. Section 12406 requires that ordinary federal law enforcement, local police, or the armed forces be unable to execute federal law before a president may call upon state militias.

But according to Breyer, there is “no evidence whatsoever” that Los Angeles — or any other part of California — currently faces unrest severe enough to meet that threshold.

At most, the government referenced past episodes of disorder, some dating back years. Breyer responded that “common sense must guide” such evaluations: earlier incidents cannot justify indefinite federal control absent proof of ongoing, present-tense inability to enforce the law.

He cited other federal judges who have warned against retroactively stretching isolated moments of unrest into blanket justifications for federal intervention. “Past experiences,” Breyer wrote, “cannot become a license for permanent militarization.”

A Legal and Political Fight Likely Headed to the Supreme Court

The case now moves to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where roughly one-third of judges are Trump appointees. The makeup of the three-judge panel assigned could shape the outcome, legal analysts note, as recent appellate decisions have swung sharply depending on panel composition.

Attorney General Bonta is expected to defend the injunction vigorously. He has called Breyer’s ruling a “major victory for the rule of law” and is set to discuss the case in an upcoming interview.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been sitting on a related Seventh Circuit appeal involving the scope of presidential power under §12406. Breyer’s opinion may pressure the Court to finally clarify what the statute means — particularly what qualifies as “regular forces” and how much discretion a president may wield in deploying state militias.

Breyer acknowledged that his own earlier reading of the statute could be mistaken. But, he added, “under any interpretation,” the facts do not support Trump’s continued federalization of California’s Guard.

A Clash Between Federal Authority and State Sovereignty

The case reflects a broader struggle over the limits of presidential power in an era of heightened political polarization. Breyer’s ruling underscores an essential theme: that the federal government cannot convert temporary emergency measures into indefinite authority over state institutions.

Whether the Ninth Circuit — or eventually the Supreme Court — will agree remains uncertain. But for now, Breyer’s message is unmistakable.

“The founders designed this government,” he wrote, “so that its constituent parts may keep each other in their proper places.”