California Argues Trump’s Use of Troops in LA Violated Federal Law

Sherman said that if a crowd threatened a federal facility in Los Angeles, federalized troops could protect it. If that crowd posed “any kind of threat” to local law enforcement, troops could “get in front of them.”

Sherman and others testified about operations that went viral on social media, including when federal agents and troops descended on MacArthur Park on July 7.

An internal memo shown in court said the purpose of having the military in the park was to “demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of the maneuver of federal law enforcement,” despite no “threat to federal function at this location.”

Sherman testified he objected to federal authorities’ request for military help, citing a low risk to law enforcement. But U.S. Border Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino, who is responsible for all immigration enforcement in California, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country.” Sherman said Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ultimately approved the deployment.

State lawyers also introduced Hegseth statements to the media earlier Monday morning, when he said he was approving military deployment in D.C. and that troops “will stand with their law enforcement partners” because “we did the same thing in Los Angeles.”

Judge Breyer pressed Sherman to answer if he would deploy troops to enforce “an unpopular law,” such as immigration or even tax collection, even without a threat of violence.

“Absolutely,” Sherman said if the mission was aligned with Trump’s and Hegseth’s orders.

State attorneys also called William B. Harrington, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for Task Force 51, which oversaw the combined 4,700 National Guard troops and Marines deployed to L.A. That was until Friday, when he was relieved of his duties “because I was coming here.”

Harrington testified that troops and leaders were instructed not to perform typical police functions, but only to protect federal property and personnel.

The state’s third and final witness was Ernesto Santacruz Jr., field office director for ICE in L.A. He said the Department of Defense did not specify what they meant when they said they were deployed to “protect” federal law enforcement, but said all of his requests for military assistance in ICE enforcement were granted.

Santacruz was questioned about the types of operations he requested military backup, which he said were daily ICE detainments and once for protection from protestors at one of their detainment facilities. Santacruz said the military intervention was helpful following a “spike of officer assaults” and large-scale protests against ICE detentions.

“They’re presence was definitely a deterrent,” he said.

Before the day ended, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton moved to dismiss the case, arguing the state had failed to prove the federal government violated the Posse Comitatus Act, but Judge Beyer reserved that judgment for later.

Sherman is scheduled to take the stand again on Tuesday, but this time on behalf of the federal government.

While the courtroom was typically stuffed with more than two dozen lawyers in suits and at least two military members in full dress uniforms, a technical glitch provided a moment of levity. Following a break, after lawyers for the federal government helped the state attorneys so they could project exhibits on computer screens, Judge Breyer made an observation.

“It is a wonderful example of federal and state cooperation,” he said, drawing laughter from the courtroom.