700 U.S. Marines depart Los Angeles while litigation continues
By Matt Ehling
On July 21st, the Los Angeles Times reported that a contingent of 700 active duty United States Marines would be departing Los Angeles for their base at Twentynine Palms, California. The Marines had been deployed to the city by President Donald Trump over a month earlier, in response to immigration protests and accompanying vandalism. The troop rotation is the latest chapter in an ongoing dispute over the president’s authority to use federal military assets inside the United States.
The Marines had originally arrived in Los Angeles after the deployment of 2000 federalized National Guard soldiers, who had been tasked with protecting federal buildings in the city.
The Guard soldiers were drawn from the ranks of the California National Guard, and had been called up in their federal capacity. National Guard troops are state-level military assets, and normally operate under the command of state governors, unless they are activated in federal “Title 10” status.
Deployment of soldiers sparked legal challenge
Trump’s actions brought an immediate legal challenge from the State of California, which sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the Los Angeles troop deployment. The TRO was granted by a district court judge, but then denied by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. President Trump currently retains command of the federalized National Guard soldiers.
The president can call state Guard troops to federal status to participate in either domestic or overseas operations. However, the domestic use of federalized Guard troops is limited by federal law. The Trump administration has based its Guard deployment on 10 U.S.C. 12406 — a federal statute that allows the president to federalize and command state National Guard troops in instances where “there is a danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or when the president “is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes — including both active duty soldiers and federalized Guard troops — is limited by the 1878-era Posse Comitatus Act.
Through its legal filings, the State of California has asserted that President Trump lacked authority to federalize state soldiers under 10 U.S.C. 12406, since the required emergency circumstances were not present. California has also pled that the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using federal troops in a law enforcement capacity.
California’s complaint states that “President Trump has repeatedly invoked emergency powers to exceed the bounds of lawful executive authority” and that “he used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California.”
The litigation currently continues in district court, where it has attracted an unusual number of amicus — friend-of-the-court — briefs.
Saint Paul based non-profit Public Record Media (PRM) has reviewed the amicus briefs filed in the case thus far. Submitting parties have included retired four-star admirals and generals, constitutional scholars, coalitions of state governments, and California lawyers. One brief was filed by an individual — Martin Akerman, the Chief Data Officer of the National Guard Bureau.
Six of the briefs oppose the President’s deployment actions, and three support them.
Brief of former military officials opposes Trump’s actions
One amici brief was filed by a group of retired military officials, including four-star admirals and generals. The group includes retired U.S. Coast Guard General Thad Allen, retired Air Force General and NSA head Michael Hayden, and former Navy Secretary Sean O’Keefe.
The brief opposes the Trump administration’s troop deployment on a number of grounds. It states that “deploying National Guard and active-duty military personnel in the context of domestic law enforcement should be a rare and carefully considered occurrence that strictly complies with the Posse Comitatus Act and its exceptions. Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to these long-established guardrails threaten the Guard’s and the active duty military’s core national security and disaster relief missions … and risk inappropriately politicizing the military.”
The brief contends that President Trump’s activation of California Guard troops departs from historical norms. It notes that “past deployments of federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes have responded to extreme circumstances where state governors have openly defied federal authority or where state officials have sought federal assistance. Those circumstances include President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s federalization of National Guard troops to enforce the Supreme Court’s order in Brown v. Board of Education to desegregate schools; President Lyndon B. Johnson’s federalization of Guard troops to protect civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama; and California Governor Pete Wilson’s request for federalization of Guard troops to quell the widespread Los Angeles riots in 1992, which President George H.W. Bush honored.”
The brief asserts that federal troops are not, in most cases, sufficiently prepared for domestic deployment — including in a “force protection” role to assist immigration agents operating in an urban setting. The brief states that “[i]n practice, the distinction between force protection and law enforcement operations is not always clear, as modern operational realities and unanticipated circumstances invite uncertainty and potential disagreement over the scope and nature of appropriate and authorized conduct. These ambiguities risk miscalculations in the heat of the moment, especially among military personnel who have not received thorough training in de-escalation tactics and the intricacies of constitutional protections afforded to civilians in the U.S.”
Private attorney briefs support Trump troop deployment
Two legal organizations filed briefs and memoranda in support of the Trump administration. A memorandum filed by the “Blue Eagle Coalition” opposed the TRO sought by the State of California. Likewise, a brief filed by a private law firm (Matevosyan Law) supported Trump’s troop deployment.
The Blue Eagle coalition filing focuses on constitutional arguments in favor of Trump’s troop activation: “The purpose of this brief is to offer the Court the perspective of interested, affected, and impacted third parties, some of whom are civilian attorneys in California … [T]his Amicus Curiae unequivocally supports Defendants in their efforts to enforce Federal law, restore order to Los Angeles, and promote the causes they are seeking to promote.”
The Blue Eagle brief highlights President Tump’s summary of conditions on the ground in Los Angeles: “According to the President, there are violent agitators, insurrectionists, and even paid anarchists who are violently attacking law enforcement, destroying property, and looting, all while waving foreign flags. The images are plentiful on X and other social media platforms.” The brief also includes other public statements from President Trump, claiming that he had called California Governor Gavin Newsom after midnight on June 7, 2025, and spoke with him “for 16 minutes.” The brief states that the President “asked the Governor to ‘get his ass in gear’ and handle the unlawful violence. After this call, according to the President, the Governor failed to act. Thus, the President issued his June 7, 2025 proclamation later that day ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guardsmen to Los Angeles.”
The brief asserts that California’s claims against the President should fail, because “the authority to call forth the militia for federal service has been exclusively vested with the President” and that “deciding to use force to protect Federal facilities and personnel is exactly the type of decision the President is supposed to make.”
State governments split over Trump actions
Two amici briefs were filed by groups of states — one on the side of the State of California, and one supporting the Trump administration. The brief in support of California was filed by states ranging from Minnesota to Kansas, and focuses on the balance of state and federal authority in America’s federalist system. It notes: “President Trump’s federalization and deployment of California’s National Guard, without the consent of California’s Governor, is a clear violation of the statute on which he relies, is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.”
The brief supporting the Trump administration was filed by states including Iowa, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. The brief asserts that the State of California “abandoned Los Angeles and federal law enforcement to violent rioters” and supports the President’s deployment authority.
PRM files FOIA request for deployment documents
A month ago, on June 28th, PRM filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) seeking, among other things, records related to the Los Angeles troop deployments. NORTHCOM is the Department of Defense entity responsible for coordinating U.S. military activity within the domestic United States.
PRM is awaiting NORTHCOM’s response to its FOIA request.
(Supporting documents for this article can be accessed by contacting Public Record Media at admin@publicrecordmedia.org, or at 651-556-1381)
©2025 Public Record Media