September 3, 2025

Hello readers! I’m Seth Maxon, an editor with Vox’s politics, policy, and ideas team. Vox’s authorities have deployed me to take over today’s newsletter and to restore order to its out-of-control pages. (Cameron Peters is taking a well-deserved break.) 

On Tuesday, a federal judge in California ruled that President Donald Trump and his co-defendants violated federal law when they deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in June to suppress protests against his administration’s immigration raids. 

To understand more about this decision and its implications, I spoke to my colleague Ian Millhiser, who covers the law and the courts for Vox and closely follows federal cases against the administration. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is transcribed below: 

⮕ Start here

A blow to Trump's National Guard plans

Seth Maxon

What are the immediate consequences of this decision? Will federal troops in LA be marching out of the city now?

Ian Millhiser

So, the immediate consequences of this decision are bupkis. Although Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it used National Guard troops to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities like blocking streets or raiding cannabis farms, he stayed his order until September 12 to give Trump's administration time to appeal it.

It's unclear what higher courts will do on appeal, but an appeals court blocked an earlier order from Breyer limiting Trump's use of troops in Los Angeles, and the Supreme Court has been so friendly to Trump that it borders on sycophancy.

If Breyer's order does go into effect on the 12th, he says there are currently about 300 troops left in Los Angeles. Breyer's order doesn't force them to go elsewhere, but it does bar them from "engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants."

Seth Maxon

That sounds similar to what the National Guard and other federal agents are doing in Washington, DC. If the order were to go into effect, would this decision affect the deployment there?

Ian Millhiser

This order would not, because it only applies to troops "currently deployed in California," and the Supreme Court has been particularly hostile to lower court decisions that try to block a federal policy on a nationwide basis. That said, if the Supreme Court were to agree with Breyer, its decision should bind every court in the country and thus would have nationwide effect.

Seth Maxon

I see. Speaking of SCOTUS, you recently wrote about the Los Angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement case that the justices are currently weighing. How is that case different?

Ian Millhiser

Breyer's case involves the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military's ability to enforce domestic laws. The other case, known as Noem v. Perdomo, asks what limits the Constitution imposes on ICE officers. ICE agents are law enforcement officers, so there isn't much question that they can do domestic law enforcement. But all law enforcement officers in the US are bound by the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

In the Perdomo case, a district judge ruled that it is unreasonable for ICE to stop or detain people solely based on four factors — including their race, the fact that they speak Spanish, or the fact that they were found in a place where undocumented immigrants work or seek jobs. It's a pretty modest order, because it still allows ICE to consider those factors plus something else when deciding who to target. But, for the reasons I explain in the piece you link to, I'm not optimistic that this Supreme Court will uphold it.

Seth Maxon

So, let’s say, as you suspect, the justices strike down the Perdomo order. Would that make it less likely they'll uphold Breyer’s ruling when it reaches them?

Ian Millhiser

I guess my answer depends on whether you are asking me for legal or political analysis. My legal opinion is that the proper interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Fourth Amendment are completely separate issues, and one shouldn't impact the other. But I think we all know that this Supreme Court doesn't base its decisions entirely on the law — hence the Court's decision saying Trump can commit crimes. So, if the justices say they are willing to let ICE do what Trump wants in LA, they are likely to say something similar about National Guard troops.

Today’s edition was produced and edited by politics, policy, and ideas editor Seth Maxon and staff editor Cameron Peters. Thanks for reading!