Context:

A federal judge, Charles Breyer, challenged the limits of presidential power during a hearing on President Trump's activation of the National Guard in response to anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles. Breyer emphasized that the U.S. is not governed by a monarchy and that presidential authority is constitutionally limited, drawing comparisons to the era of King George to highlight his point. The hearing revolved around whether Trump's actions violated Title 10, which involves federalizing the National Guard and requires cooperation with state governors, a process that was disputed by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The Department of Justice argued that the courts lack authority to review Trump's invocation of Title 10, while Newsom's attorneys claimed Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bypassed necessary legal procedures, exacerbating the situation. The intensifying protests, which included violence and property damage, led to a legal battle between Trump and Newsom, with the latter's camp arguing there was no rebellion justifying the Guard's deployment without state consent.

Dive Deeper:

• Judge Charles Breyer scrutinized the legality of President Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to address riots in Los Angeles, asserting that presidential powers are constitutionally constrained and not akin to monarchical rule.

• The hearing focused on whether Trump's actions were in compliance with Title 10 laws, which require presidents to coordinate with governors when federalizing National Guard forces, a point contested by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

• DOJ Civil Division head Brett Shumate contended that courts do not have the authority to review decisions made under Title 10, while Newsom's legal team argued that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exceeded their authority, violating legal protocols.

• The Title 10 statute, which Trump and Hegseth invoked, stipulates that a president must act 'through' a governor, a concept Breyer questioned, particularly as Newsom asserted he was bypassed in the decision-making process.

• Governor Newsom opposed the federal military intervention, arguing it intensified the riots and was not justified under Title 10, which requires the presence of a rebellion or insurrection—conditions Newsom's attorneys claim were not met.

• In the wake of the National Guard's deployment, protests escalated, leading to significant unrest, including arson and assaults on law enforcement, prompting a legal confrontation between Trump and Newsom, with implications for future federal-state power dynamics.

• The legal dispute over the National Guard's activation adds to the broader political tension between Trump and Newsom, with the latter emerging as a vocal critic and possible presidential contender in 2028.