A bellwether case for courts' authority

Trial over National Guard's deployment in June tests whether Trump will heed rule of law

- By Sonja Sharp

JASON ARMOND Los Angeles Times

PRESIDENT Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, above, despite California's objections.

Minutes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to “flood” Washington with National Guard members, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the deployment of troops to Los Angeles.

"We're just going to see what happens.

The move during protests this summer has since become the model for President Trump's increasing use of the military to police American streets.

But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that troops called up by Trump have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement.

“The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,” California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday.

“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” the deputy attorney general said. “President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth's statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain.

But the White House hasn't let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been fazed by a judge's order restricting so-called roving patrols used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants.

After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot appearing to openly defy the court's order some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight.