A federal judge with significant family ties to the Supreme Court has been assigned to California Governor Gavin Newsom's legal challenge against President Donald Trump. The case centers on Trump's controversial decision to federalize National Guard troops amid ongoing unrest in Los Angeles.
According to Fox News, Judge Charles Breyer, the younger brother of retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, will preside over the high-profile lawsuit. Charles Breyer, appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton, received the case through the Northern District of California's random assignment system.
The lawsuit alleges that Trump overstepped his authority by mobilizing California National Guard troops without Newsom's consent to address anti-immigration enforcement protests. This legal battle pits one of the nation's most prominent Democrats against the Republican president in what could become a landmark case on federal versus state authority.
Judge Charles Breyer's family connection to the Supreme Court has drawn attention, though there's no indication of impropriety in the case assignment. His brother Stephen served nearly three decades on the Supreme Court after being appointed by President Clinton in 1994.
The Northern District of California's court website explicitly states that cases are assigned "blindly and at random" through an automated system. This process is designed to prevent any perception that judges are hand-selected for politically sensitive cases.
Newsom's lawsuit represents a direct legal challenge to Trump's authority as commander-in-chief. The California governor claims the president made an "unprecedented power grab" by federalizing National Guard troops without gubernatorial approval, an unusual move that allegedly undermined state sovereignty.
The legal dispute emerges from escalating unrest in Los Angeles County where anti-ICE protests have grown increasingly violent. Some demonstrations have devolved into rioting, with protesters reportedly throwing concrete bottles at law enforcement officers.
The situation deteriorated further after Trump's National Guard deployment, with rioters setting fire to self-driving cars and looting stores in parts of the county. Newsom's lawsuit directly connects Trump's military intervention to the subsequent increase in chaos and violence.
Trump has defended his decision as necessary to protect ICE personnel and federal buildings from violent protesters. The president's action represents a rare instance of federalizing a state's National Guard without the governor's request or approval, highlighting the extraordinary nature of the current situation.
The case carries significant political weight as it involves Newsom, considered a potential Democratic presidential contender for 2028, directly challenging President Trump's authority during a period of national unrest.
The lawsuit comes amid speculation about Newsom's political ambitions beyond California. His direct confrontation with Trump on a constitutional issue concerning federal versus state power could position him as a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
The timing is particularly notable as it coincides with growing Republican criticism of Newsom's handling of the protests. Some Republican lawmakers have accused the governor of failing to maintain order, creating the conditions that led to Trump's intervention.
The assignment of Judge Breyer to this case comes amid broader concerns about judicial impartiality in politically charged cases. Some Republicans have recently questioned case assignments in Washington, D.C., specifically targeting Judge James Boasberg.
These critics have suggested that Boasberg deliberately took on Trump-related cases to influence outcomes in favor of plaintiffs. However, Boasberg has directly refuted these claims, stating that his assignments were randomly determined by computer like most other cases in his court.
As Judge Charles Breyer prepares to hear arguments in this consequential case, both the Trump administration and California officials are gearing up for a legal battle that could help define the boundaries between federal and state authority during civil unrest. The outcome may establish important precedent for presidential powers in deploying military forces within U.S. borders.
