Did trump v Newsom posse comitatus result
Executive summary
A federal judge ruled in August/September 2025 that President Trump’s deployment of federalized troops — including the California National Guard in Los Angeles — violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement (see federal rulings reported by BBC and California officials) [1] [2]. California’s lawsuit, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, argued the deployments exceeded Title 10 authority and sought permanent injunctions; state press releases and reporting document trial proceedings, testimony, and multiple related injunctions and temporary restraining orders in other jurisdictions [3] [4] [5].
1. Court finds unlawful military policing in Los Angeles
A federal judge concluded in mid‑2025 that the Trump administration’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, writing that the deployments amounted to prohibited domestic law‑enforcement activity and noting the absence of a statutory or constitutional authorization such as an Insurrection Act invocation [1] [6]. California and its attorneys collected military testimony and presented evidence at a bench trial arguing Guard troops were used to restrict movement and act as a coercive deterrent — conduct the state says is squarely barred by the 1878 statute codified at 18 U.S.C. 1385 [3] [5].
2. Legal theory at the center: Posse Comitatus vs. “protective power”
Legal commentators have framed the litigation around whether any asserted Article II “protective power” or other executive authorities can override the Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on using federal forces to “execute the laws.” Analysts at Just Security and academic observers say courts usually ask whether military actions are strictly necessary and incidental to protecting federal property and functions; where they are not, the Posse Comitatus Act applies [7]. Newsom’s suit emphasized that the President did not invoke the Insurrection Act — the traditional statutory exception used in past presidential deployments — making the administration’s legal footing contested in court [7] [8].
3. Broader pattern and follow‑on litigation around the country
California’s case was not isolated: state officials reported parallel legal fights in other cities and states seeking to block federalized troops, with at least one federal judge issuing a temporary restraining order in Illinois to block deployments to Chicago and another block on troop deployments to Portland [2] [4]. News coverage and state press releases document plans by Oregon and Portland to challenge deployments and note the White House’s larger pattern of federalized forces appearing in multiple jurisdictions during 2025 [4] [2].
4. What the Posse Comitatus Act actually prohibits and penalties
The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878 and codified as 18 U.S.C. 1385, bars use of the Army (and, by statute and policy extensions, other federal armed forces) for domestic law enforcement except where the Constitution or Congress expressly authorizes such use; violations can carry misdemeanor penalties, fines, and imprisonment under the statute’s text [8]. State filings argued the federalization here exceeded Title 10 authority because it lacked governor consent and did not meet the statutory exceptions California says are required [8] [3].
5. Conflicting narratives and political stakes
Governor Newsom and AG Bonta framed the litigation as a constitutional and democratic defense against military policing, pressing for permanent injunctions and return of federalized Guard units to state control [3]. The Trump administration’s public legal posture included arguments about protecting federal property and functions; legal scholars and outlets disagree on whether that protective rationale can lawfully justify the scope of deployments alleged by California [7]. Reporting underscores the political overlay: the disputes have become high‑profile flashpoints between a state governor positioning himself as a national critic and an administration asserting broad domestic security powers [9] [10].
6. What reporting does not (yet) say
Available sources do not mention any final, nationwide appellate resolution from the Supreme Court as of these reports; they focus on district court rulings, temporary restraining orders, and bench‑trial findings through late 2025 [2] [1] [4]. Details about criminal prosecutions under the Posse Comitatus Act arising from these deployments are not reported in the provided materials [8].
7. Why this matters going forward
The decisions and filings documented here test the boundary between federal military authority and civilian law enforcement in peacetime urban contexts, and they set precedents other states and courts are already citing when blocking or enjoining similar troop deployments [4] [5]. Courts will weigh narrow statutory text, historical practice, and the political consequences of endorsing broad executive military powers — and both legal experts and state officials expect further appeals and interjurisdictional litigation [7] [3].