A federal judge in San Francisco expressed skepticism at a hearing Thursday that President Trump had the authority to federalize the National Guard, questioning whether he had followed the law before ordering an extraordinary deployment to Los Angeles over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presiding over the case, pushed back against the Justice Department’s central argument, that courts had no say in the matter.

“We’re talking about the president is exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”

“We live in response to a monarchy,” the judge continued, adding: “Line drawing is important, because it establishes a system of process.”

In the lengthy hearing, Breyer directed most of his questioning to the Trump administration, which has cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code to justify the takeover of the National Guard. But that provision, the judge noted, requires that orders from the president “shall be issued through the governors of the States.”

“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody, if in fact you didn’t send it to him,” Breyer asked. “As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it’s going through?”

The judge was less willing, however, to engage in the legality of Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys for California noted that 140 Marines were scheduled to relieve and replace Guardsmen over the next 24 hours.

The case was brought by California against the Trump administration earlier this week after a historic weekend in L.A. County. The state contends that Trump exceeded his authority in an “unprecedented power grab” by federalizing the Guard without the consent of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and by deploying Marines on American soil.

Breyer told the court that he was “hopeful” to have a decision on the matter by the end of the day, or “very soon.” Sensing a potential defeat in court, the Justice Department requested the judge issue only a preliminary injunction with a stay that would allow the government to appeal.

“We expect an order from the court making clear what’s lawful and what’s unlawful, and part of that is making clear that the deployment of the National Guard by Trump is unlawful,” California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, told The Times on Wednesday.

“He might just strike down that deployment,” Bonta added, “returning the National Guard to the command of its appropriate commander-in-chief, the governor.”

The Trump administration, on the other hand, argued in a brief to the court that it has no role reviewing the matter.

“Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation. Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either,” the Justice Department said.

Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Customs and Border Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to first threaten, and then quickly deploy, the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation on Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments.

_____

(Wilner reported from Washington and Wong from San Francisco.)

_____

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.