The State of California has intensified its legal battle against Trump’s unprecedented domestic deployment of military forces, with Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) submitting a new filing that urges a federal court to immediately halt the remaining National Guard presence in Los Angeles. California is arguing that Trump is perpetuating an "unlawful federalization" and a "never-ending military occupation" of the city.

The latest court motion is the second time the state has sought judicial intervention to block a deployment initiated by Trump in early June. At its peak during the summer, the operation saw approximately 5,000 troops—primarily federalized members of the California National Guard and U.S. Marines—stationed in Los Angeles, ostensibly to counter protests against Trump's aggressive immigration raids.

However, in the state's view, the justification for the military presence has evaporated. While large-scale protests have long since subsided, Trump continues to maintain a deployment of approximately 101 soldiers.

In the filing, California asserts that Trump is treating the initial federalization order "as a blank check," allowing Trump unchecked authority over the duration and scope of the troop deployment.

The heart of the dispute lies in Trump’s reliance on 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (Title 10), an obscure and rarely invoked federal statute. This law permits the presidential commandeering of National Guard forces from a state—stripping control from Governor Gavin Newsom (D)—only in extreme circumstances like a foreign invasion, a domestic rebellion, or when Trump is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws."

"Whatever 10 U.S.C. § 12406 permits," the state's argument reads, "it certainly does not authorize the sort of broad-ranging, never-ending federalization and military occupation of American cities that Defendants are perpetrating."

California further highlights that the mission of the federalized troops has dangerously drifted from the stated goal of protecting federal property. The troops were documented assisting in general law enforcement activities, including participating in routine Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raids on marijuana farms hundreds of miles away in the Coachella Valley.

Moreover, after courts successfully blocked similar federalizations in Oregon and Illinois, Trump attempted to circumvent those rulings by transferring California Guard troops from Los Angeles to Portland and Chicago. California argues this cross-state reassignment is definitive proof that the original claim of an urgent need for a military presence in Los Angeles no longer holds merit.

The Los Angeles case has seen a complicated legal trajectory. A federal judge initially ruled that the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a law barring the use of the military as a domestic police force. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on that ruling, keeping the federalization order in effect pending appeal.

This mirrors the national legal confusion surrounding Trump's authority:

* **Portland**: A federal judge last week issued a permanent injunction blocking Trump’s deployment to Portland, finding it violated both the Constitution and Title 10.

* **Chicago/Supreme Court**: Trump's attempted Chicago deployment reached the Supreme Court via an emergency appeal. In a surprising move, the High Court asked for more information on the interpretation of "regular forces" as referenced in Title 10. The Department of Justice argues this phrase refers only to civilian forces, while Illinois maintains it includes the standing military. Legal analysts suggest the Supreme Court's definition of this term could critically undermine the legal basis for nearly all of Trump's domestic military deployments.

State AG Rob Bonta Cites Fading Protests and Mission Creep in Renewed Legal Challenge to National Guard Deployment