The Brief

Did the U.S. military illegally engage in civilian law enforcement when they were deployed to Los Angeles in June under the orders of President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta say yes. Trump’s Department of Justice says no. The three-day trial to answer this question is scheduled to commence today at 10 a.m. in a California federal district court, with implications for the country as Trump continues to signal a desire to deploy troops to patrol domestic city streets.

The president has appointed himself chair of a task force on the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, telling reporters that “we’ll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our National Guard or military, OK?”

Relatedly, the Department of Defense issued a new activation order to deploy troops in California for another 90 days on Aug. 5, California lawyers told the court in a filing. That came two weeks after the Marines deployed to Los Angeles left and a week after the Trump administration demobilized most of the National Guard.

California’s lawyers assert evidence in their briefs, often redacted because of a court order, that the military took part in law enforcement in violation of 19th Century law called the Posse Comitatus Act. They want a judge to order the Trump administration to permanently halt those actions. The Trump Department of Justice counters that those engagements don’t count as law enforcement, but rather fall under the category of supporting immigration law enforcement agents or protecting federal buildings.

Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, a law that would allow the military to engage in law enforcement activity.

How did we get here?

This trial is an extension of the June lawsuit that Newsom filed against Trump after the president took over California’s National Guard. Trump did that in response to protests that broke out in the Los Angeles area after immigration law enforcement agents began workforce raids to apprehend individuals allegedly in the U.S. without proper authorization.

Ultimately, about 4,000 troops from the California National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles.

That month marked a new nadir in the relations between Newsom and Trump. The governor likened the president to failed dictators. Trump endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom.

Charles Breyer, the judge in Monday's case and oversaw the June hearings, initially sided with Newsom, ordering that Trump return the National Guard to the governor. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that move. They found that the Trump administration legitimately called up troops to protect federal buildings and federal employees from some protesters who tossed chunks of concrete and used trash dumpsters as battering rams. California lawyers said the troops’ presence inflamed the protests.

The June protests lasted about a week and were largely isolated to a handful of city blocks in the downtown area; Los Angeles is roughly 500 square miles.

Breyer then allowed California’s lawyers to depose Trump officials and gather documents to argue California’s case that the Trump administration was violating the law barring the military from acting as a police force. Trump’s Department of Justice lawyers tried to cancel the trial but failed.

What is California’s latest allegation? 

That Los Angeles residents were “subjected to a form of military occupation” as federal troops worked alongside federal immigration agents, “often indistinguishable from each other.”

The lawyers say that “never before, in the history of the Nation, has the federal government utilized the military for domestic law enforcement in this manner.”

The Trump administration’s “insistence that perimeters, blockades, and other security functions are permissible makes clear they will continue to engage in these activities,” California lawyers with the state attorney general’s office wrote to Breyer.

The lawyers argued that if military forces can accompany U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their raids and arrests, as had been unfolding in Los Angeles, “there would be no logical basis to preclude members of the Armed Forces from accompanying other law enforcement agents when performing their duties,” the California lawyers wrote. Military personnel could accompany federal food safety inspectors, medical fraud investigators or accompany federal voting rights officials to “monitor” election polling places, they wrote.

What are California’s examples of the military acting as police?

Attorneys representing the state pointed to several instances in which they allege troops went too far and violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military in civilian settings:

• California attorneys deposed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field director who said National Guard soldiers accompanied immigration officers on as many as 75% of their missions.
• Troops accompanied a federal agency during a “law enforcement operation” at a cannabis facility in Riverside County and formed a security perimeter that prevented people from leaving the site. 
• Troops allegedly formed security perimeters on July 7 during a demonstration at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles during raids at cannabis farms in Ventura County.
• In two incidents, military service members detained civilians, the California lawyers wrote. One took place in Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County, where National Guard troops allegedly “apprehended” a protester. In the other, a Marine on June 13 allegedly detained someone at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles.
• California attorneys collected testimony from the deputy chief of staff of the military unit in Los Angeles who said the National Guard is subject to Posse Comitatus and cannot engage in civilian law enforcement. 
• The attorneys point to military-issued guidance that “directly providing ‘security functions’ for civilian law enforcement agents is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” per their summary. But, the lawyers note, the military unit in L.A. was ordered to “actively provide security during civil law enforcement operations on a near-continuous basis since the deployment began,” the California lawyers wrote. 

How does the federal government respond?

The federal government says California is wrong for four reasons. Some are disputes over technical court procedure and some disputing the facts California’s legal team is presenting.

• Federal lawyers wrote that Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute, which cannot be used in a civil case, and the lawsuit is civil, not criminal. 
• They dispute that the president or the Department of Defense exceeded its authority in ordering the troops to assist federal immigration law enforcement in apprehensions. “As Supreme Court precedent makes clear, the (Posse Comitatus Act) does not prohibit the President from using troops to protect federal personnel and property,” the Trump administration lawyers wrote.
• The federal lawyers also say California has no standing to sue. (California’s attorneys dispute this.)
• Fourth, the lawyers say that the National Guard can act as a police force because the law Trump cited to federalize them permits the National Guard to “execute the laws of the United States” if the president is unable to do that with “regular forces,” which at minimum means enforcing “federal immigration laws as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property,” the federal lawyers wrote.

The lawyers also dispute that the military’s role counts as law enforcement. California’s lawyers say the Marines “briefly detained” a protester. But the federal lawyers wrote that action “was in protection of federal property (the individual had attempted to enter a restricted area on federal property multiple times) and the Marines turned that individual over to the LAPD minutes later.”

And providing a perimeter for federal immigration law enforcement also doesn’t violate Posse Comitatus, because, as a previous federal court found, “Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to federal troops playing ‘a passive role in civilian enforcement activities,’” the federal lawyers wrote.

What is likely to happen after this trial?

How Breyer will rule is impossible to forecast. He sided with California already only to have a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals block his orders.

Nor is the military the main force acting on the Trump administration’s interpretation of immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security has that role through its various agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol.

Those agencies were temporarily blocked by a lower district court judge from making apprehensions in Southern California based on race, ethnicity, language, and location or employment. The move sought to block “roving” immigration stops in California’s most populous region.

A panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that block. Last week the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States to lift the lower court’s restraining order.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.