The deployment of military forces in Los Angeles, under presidential control, is set to continue through the weekend despite a federal judge’s strong disapproval, leading to potential confrontations. Protests in Los Angeles will continue to be met by armed soldiers, while state and local authorities remain in conflict with the president. The Trump administration’s legal team is exploring historical case law to justify the ongoing federal intervention, including references to constitutional strategies used to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

According to many legal experts, the current situation in Los Angeles is a critical test of the White House’s desired powers, which include suppressing protests, overriding state leadership, and expanding presidential authority to its legal limits.

“A lot rides on what happens this weekend,” said Christopher Mirasola,a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals‘ decision to delay the transfer of troop control back to California leaders until after the weekend leaves the Trump administration in charge of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines during the planned nationwide “No Kings” protests on Saturday.

The Trump administration argued in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. because protesters were allegedly preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants, and because demonstrations in the city’s center constituted a “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Legal Clash over Presidential Power

“his actions were illegal – both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

However, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco stated that President Trump had bypassed state leaders when he federalized California’s troops and deployed them against protesters.

“His actions were illegal – both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

Judge Breyer ruled that while ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still capable of enforcing U.S. immigration law without military assistance. He also noted that a few aggressive individuals among thousands of peaceful protesters did not constitute an insurrection.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and hazardous,” the judge wrote.

The 9th Circuit temporarily suspended Breyer’s ruling shortly after he issued a restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to remove the National Guard soldiers from L.A.

This suspension will remain in effect until at least Tuesday, when a three-judge panel-consisting of two Trump appointees and one biden appointee-will hear arguments on whether the troops can remain under federal control.

The legal battle has invoked precedents dating back to the country’s founding, presenting sharply contrasting views of federal authority and states’ rights.

The last instance of a president federalizing the National Guard against a state governor’s wishes occurred in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March, defying then-Gov. George Wallace.

According to Mirasola,deploying troops to aid ICE is more akin to President Millard fillmore’s actions a century earlier. Starting in 1850,Fillmore sent troops to assist federal marshals in apprehending escaped slaves who had fled north.

Mirasola explained that Trump’s arguments for deploying the National Guard and Marines to support federal immigration enforcement efforts are based on the same principle, derived from the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution. He also pointed out that public anger over the military’s repeated clashes with civilians contributed to the tensions leading up to the Civil War.

“Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.

some analysts suggest that Trump strategically chose immigration to promote his interpretation of the “unitary executive theory,” a legal concept that asserts the legislature cannot limit, nor the judiciary interfere with, the president’s control over the executive branch.

“It’s not a coincidence that we’re seeing immigration be the flash point,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. “Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority.”

Chen, who leads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, stated that Trump and his advisors clearly have a “vision of how ICE can be emboldened.”

“he’s putting that on steroids,” Chen said. “He’s folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing.”

Some experts note that Judge Breyer’s order applies only to California, meaning that the president could attempt similar actions elsewhere until the matter is fully adjudicated, which could take weeks or months.

“The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the liberty and National Security Program at NYU’s Brennan center for Justice.

“President Trump’s memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it’s appropriate … wherever protests are occurring,” Goitein said.”He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force.”

Experts suggest that Breyer’s ruling sets a high standard for what constitutes “rebellion” under the law, making it more tough for the administration to legitimately claim such a situation exists in L.A.,assuming the ruling is upheld on appeal.

“It’s hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.

The Trump administration remains firm in its stance that extreme measures are necessary to maintain order and protect federal agents in their duties.

“The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. “Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect.”

Even with the 9th Circuit’s decision, the issue may still reach the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars worry that Trump might defy the court if he continues to lose. Others believe he may be satisfied with the disruption caused while these cases proceed through the legal system.

“It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing somthing illegal.”