Controversy Surrounds Military Involvement in Civil Law Enforcement in California
Just moments after Secretary of National Defense Pete Heggs announced plans to significantly increase National Guard presence, senior military officials found themselves in a federal court in California discussing the controversial deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles.
The protest movement that surfaced earlier this summer has evolved into a significant aspect of President Trump’s strategy to utilize military personnel for policing U.S. cities.
However, a trial that took place on Monday in San Francisco has ignited a heated debate in California, raising concerns about the legality of military involvement in civil law enforcement. “The Southern California military is so intertwined with ICE and other law enforcement that it’s nearly indistinguishable,” argued California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong in court on Tuesday.
“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” she added. “President Trump is signaling that cities like Baltimore and Oakland could soon follow suit.”
US District Senior Judge Charles R. Breyer indicated that Heggs’ comments from Monday could potentially sway the court’s decisions in the state’s favor.
Despite this, the White House seems undeterred by ongoing cases, and Trump officials have not adhered to judges’ restrictions regarding the so-called “roving patrols” that federal agents utilize.
Some lawyers have cautioned that the rule of law appears to be crumbling, especially after Border Patrol agents jumped from a mobile truck to apprehend workers at a Home Depot in Westlake last week. “It’s simply astounding,” commented Mark Rosenbaum, part of a coalition challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, reflecting a deep sense of injustice.
The aggressive arrests that characterized the summer in Los Angeles have ceased following an initial order from July 11. An August 1 ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals further ensured that such actions could not resume for some time.
For some, this loss in the 9th Circuit is just one more setback amid a series of judicial defeats for the administration, which has faced substantial limitations from federal judges.
“We’ve been working hard to navigate these waters,” remarked Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University.
In recent weeks, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that several of Trump’s executive orders are unconstitutional concerning citizenship and leaned toward supporting researchers at the University of California aiming to recover funds from Trump’s initiatives against DEI policies.
Meanwhile, in different jurisdictions, particularly the DC Circuit, there are indications that Trump’s tariffs could face blockages, although a federal judge in Miami has temporarily halted construction on a particular project.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta highlighted that his Justice Department has taken legal action against the administration nearly 40 times, but even such rapid litigation pales in comparison to the speed of immigration agents’ actions.
Federal officials have publicly criticized California Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have jointly lamented that their city serves as an “executive Petri dish.” On Monday, the White House further validated these claims by deploying the National Guard to Washington.
During a lengthy address, President Trump labeled several American cities as being “under siege.” When queried about potential troop deployments in these areas, he responded ambiguously, “We’re just going to see what happens.” He specifically mentioned New York and Chicago as potential candidates for intervention, suggesting that Los Angeles should take heed.
The Justice Department argues that the forces empowering the president to mobilize the military domestically will also create “constitutional exceptions” to the Congressional Comitatus Act— a 19th-century law prohibiting military actions in civilian contexts. However, California lawyers contest that no such exceptions exist.
Judge Breyer raised concerns, asking, “Are there any restrictions on federal military use?” Ilya Somin, a constitutional scholar at George Mason University, noted that when in conflict, Trump administration officials typically have a high rate of success, which resonates with their base. “If they do lose, it could raise questions about their relationship with the court,” he suggested.
Others echoed similar sentiments. “The larger question is whether courts can enforce their own orders,” remarked David J. Beer from the Cato Institute, indicating a lack of evident change in the behavior of Department of Homeland Security agents.
Some speculate that this situation may serve as a strategic maneuver to expand the Supreme Court’s interpretation of presidential power. Mark Glover, a professor at the University of Maryland, pointed out that while numerous district court decisions may be unfavorable, they still often hold when escalating to the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the emotional and political landscape in California—which some view as almost a different entity altogether—creates a compelling backdrop for potential Supreme Court rulings that could nationalize military deployments.
Segall warned against the implications of such rulings, stating, “We don’t want the military on American streets; it’s a stopgap measure for the entire country.” He remarked that martial law, despite being a strong concern, shouldn’t be entirely dismissed.
Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, one of the plaintiffs in a Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, expressed that the case signifies more than his individual experience. Speaking from the podium outside an ACLU office, he emphasized, “I don’t want silence to define my story. I seek justice for everyone whose humanity is denied.”
