A federal judge's order on Tuesday invalidating President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to keep order in Los Angeles amid protests against his deportation policy has triggered a flurry of legal analysis.
The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, is stayed from taking effect for 10 days to give Trump time to appeal the decision — but it contains scorching rejoinders against the president's use of military power. Breyer, the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said Trump was effectively using the military as an illegal "national police force" and violated the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal law that prohibits the military from domestic civilian law enforcement.
The ruling predictably triggered fury among MAGA supporters, with John Strand, a January 6 defendant who was convicted of felony obstruction but released due to a Supreme Court ruling, posting, "BREAKING: District Judge Charles Breyer just 'ordered' Trump to stop the deployment of the National Guard in California to protect federal staff and buildings. He will be reversed, of course, because this is insane. Judicial tyranny is ruining our country. This must be stopped."
Experts, however, had a generally different reaction.
"This only impacts California for now, and is likely not going to go into effect given the current Supreme Court," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council who has frequently criticized the president's law enforcement actions. "But it does set good precedent for other challenges going forward, given his findings about what constitutes a Posse Comitatus Act violation."
Meanwhile, UMass political science professor Tim Hogan suspected the ruling will be an obstacle for Trump replicating his military takeovers in other cities, as he has threatened to do.
"Judge Breyer's injunction is going to give the courts in Chicago the basis for banning der Furrer's move to seize control of the windy city," wrote Hogan.