Credit where it’s due: Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California doesn’t make you guess where he stands. When he issues a ruling, subtlety is not part of the package. And in this case, he made it abundantly clear that he does not approve of President Trump’s decision to federalize and deploy the National Guard — and he isn’t remotely shy about broadcasting that disapproval.
In a Wednesday morning order, Judge Breyer granted Gavin Newsom & Co.’s renewed request for a preliminary injunction blocking the federalization and deployment of the California National Guard in the Los Angeles area. And he wasted no time telegraphing his disdain. His opening line reads like something pulled from a political blog, not a judicial bench:
“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” That’s the first sentence, but here’s the gist of the rest of his 35-page order:
Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly. What’s more, Defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops. In response to Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin this conduct, Defendants take the position that, after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts. Defendants’ position is contrary to the law. Accordingly, the Court ENJOINS Defendants’ federalization of California National Guard troops.
Breyer then proceeds to recap the procedural tangle that has unfolded since the California Guard was first federalized in June. He notes that the Trump administration drew down most of the Guard members over the summer, releasing them in stages. But right before the original order expired, the administration issued a fresh federalization directive in August, pulling 300 Guard members onto federal status for 90 days, through November 4.
Naturally, California officials challenged that order too. But because the June order was already in front of the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court had to pause and clarify the obvious: the August order wasn’t part of the appeal, meaning Breyer still had jurisdiction to rule on it.
Then came October — with the administration issuing yet another order, extending federalization through February 2, 2026. So Breyer’s latest ruling isn’t revisiting the June action. It’s aimed squarely at the August and October orders, and it sets up the next phase of the fight between an administration trying to restore order on the streets and a state government determined to obstruct it at every turn.
The administration contends that the later orders cannot be examined by the court. Breyer, naturally, holds a differing viewpoint:
That is shocking. Adopting Defendants’ interpretation of Section 12406 would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully. Such a scenario would validate the Founders’ “widespread fear [of] a national standing Army,” which they believed “posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate States.”
Ultimately, Breyer’s order blocks the administration from deploying the California National Guard anywhere in Los Angeles and—far more consequentially—commands the White House to hand operational control of the Guard back to Gavin Newsom. It is, in effect, a judicial veto over the president’s Article II authority, wrapped in 35 pages of flowery language about “checks and balances.”
Breyer then pauses to stay his own ruling until noon on Monday, an unmistakable sign that he knows exactly what comes next: another appeal, stacked on top of the two already pending at the Ninth Circuit. We’ll keep you posted.
