Over the past weekend, Los Angeles was rocked by riots and protests sparked by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. What began as peaceful demonstrations against aggressive immigration enforcement escalated into violent unrest– looting, burning cars, throwing bricks at squad vehicles, and even riding a motorcycle into a line of officers. By Sunday night, Los Angeles police declared all of downtown an unlawful assembly area, ordering protesters to disperse after three days of demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.
In response to the turmoil, President Trump made the extraordinary decision to “federalize” the California National Guard and deploy troops in Los Angeles. This move came over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who condemned the federal intervention as overreach. Nevertheless, on June 7, President Trump issued an executive memorandum calling National Guard units into federal service under 10 U.S.C. §12406, citing the wave of violent protests as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the United States.” By Sunday, 2,000 National Guard personnel were ordered to assist the LA police department, however many seem to question if this move is what turned the LA ICE protests into full blown riots. Further fueling the unrest, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deployed 700 marines to aid the national guard in their protection of federal buildings early Tuesday (June 10th) morning.
Federal vs. State Authority: Was This a Legal Move?
The short answer is we’ll have to wait for the courts to reach a verdict. President Trump’s deployment of the Guard in California, done without Governor Newsom’s approval, tests the balance of power between federal authority and state sovereignty. Under the U.S. Constitution, state National Guard units are normally under governors’ control, unless they are “federalized” for national service. Here, Trump acted under Title 10 of the U.S. Code §12406, which allows the President to call up state National Guard troops if the United States is invaded, if there’s a “rebellion or danger of rebellion,” or if “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” In his June 7 order, the President explicitly framed the Los Angeles protests as a threat to federal law enforcement; citing “incidents of violence and disorder” impeding ICE operations and endangering federal property, effectively invoking the “rebellion” clause of §12406.
The Insurrection Act is a related authority that could have been invoked, but was not. The Insurrection Act expressly empowers the President to use the military (including federalized Guard or even active-duty troops) to suppress insurrections or enforce federal law when local authorities cannot or will not, linking it conceptually to §12406. Across the U.S.’ history, the Insurrection Act has only been invoked 30 times, ironically with the last being in LA during the Rodney King riots. President Trump stopped short of explicitly invoking the Insurrection Act, instead using the narrower Title 10 authority to protect federal functions. Why does this distinction matter? Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, federal military forces are generally prohibited from direct involvement in civilian law enforcement, meaning they provide support for local law enforcement as they make arrests and handle the majority of crowd control. When the Guard is federalized under Title 10, they become part of the U.S. military and cannot make arrests or enforce ordinary laws unless an exception like the Insurrection Act applies. We did not see this act invoked due to the scale of the protests. While the media is certainly doing its fair share to publicize the violence, these current riots are not of the same severity level as the others who warranted the Insurrection Act. We will most likely not see this act used unless there was a sudden, drastic scaling of violence and overwhelming local authority.
In the current Los Angeles scenario, Trump justified the Guard deployment as necessary to protect ICE agents and facilities, arguing that the protests had crossed into unlawful territory by directly inhibiting the execution of federal immigration laws. Opposition to these actions can make the claim that this was a move on Trump’s part to silence the dissent of his immigration policies, hoping the Guard would quell any kind of protest. Even though the First Amendment gives the right to assemble and protest the government’s actions, it does not issue a blanket immunity for the participants of a protest to endanger others or destroy property. Interference with ICE agents aside, the escalation on both sides remains up for questioning. Were the protests already on the boiling point of becoming a riot, forcing the president’s hand to ensure public safety and the continuance of federal operations? Would the protests evolve into the violent scenes we see on the news if there was no Guard or Marine deployment to begin with? What could the California state and U.S. federal governments have done to ensure protection of individuals prior to the riot and how can they remedy the situation moving forward? Governor Newsom’s impending lawsuit will ideally provide some answers, and will hopefully set a precedent of how to protect citizens exercising their First Amendment right, while keeping those who wish to incite violence in check.
How Can the Suit Play Out?
Deploying troops against domestic protesters is exceptionally rare in modern U.S. history. The last time a President federalized a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent was in 1965, when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights marchers. Contrary to 2025’s tumultuous political state, there was no legal proceeding or congressional censure brought to President Johnson as a result. The circumstances were different, however. Johnson federalized the Guard to protect the protestors, not ensure the continuance of federal actions or protection of government facilities. From this view, if the president made the active decision to circumvent a governor for the protection of its citizens exercising their rights, it would be hard to find legal basis to redress. While some connections may be drawn between the two events, this is not the current scenario. Trump made the move because ICE operations were impacted due to the protests, demonstrating that the Guard’s federalization was made in the interest of the government’s operations, not the protection of individual rights.
From a separation of powers perspective, the main issues here actually involve federalism, state vs. federal authority, rather than the three branches of the federal government. Congress, for its part, has already provided the president statutory authority via Title 10 and the Insurrection Act. However, could courts step in to referee this dispute? On June 9th, Governor Newsom’s administration signaled it would sue, arguing that the situation in L.A. did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion” or an insurmountable threat to law enforcement. By most accounts the protests, while chaotic, were localized and largely an outcry against policy, not an uprising against U.S. governance. If California sued, it could assert that President Trump exceeded his authority under the statute, yet any litigation faces hurdles: the time it would take to fully process this case would naturally devalue the significance of the riots and federalization, especially if the situation quickly dies down and if the guard withdraws before the proceedings begin. In the legal setting, the courts often give the Commander-in-Chief broad discretion in national security and public order emergencies. Let’s examine supporting case law for both sides of the argument-
Newsom’s legal action is expected given the rarity of this particular scenario. With so many sides to the story left for interpretation, the courts will be the only institution to put an end to the disagreements. The ultimate solvent action for the courts is to decide who holds the authority. Was this really a “rebellion” that granted Trump the authority to supersede a governor under 10 U.S.C. §12406?