President Donald Trumpis increasingly moving to deploy the military on US soilin extraordinary ways, includingpotentially in Chicago. "We're going in," he said on Tuesday, while adding: "I didn't say when." A major new rulingin California earlier in the day doesn't stop him from doing that. But it does suggest there could be little actual utility in the president pressing forward with his longstanding push to militarize the homeland. US District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling that Trump's use of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles in June was illegal is a nuanced one. For one, it doesn't prevent Trump from deploying the military or keeping troops in Los Angeles. It merely says they can't perform law enforcement functions, versus things like protecting federal property. Doing the former, Breyerruled, violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Secondly, it only applies to California. So it doesn't prevent Trump from doing anything in Chicago or elsewhere. He could push forward with his plans and wait for other judges to rule on them. The administration is also likely to appeal Breyer's ruling, meaning this might not be the final word. But the ruling reinforces that Trump might not be able to use the troops for the very thing he actually wants to use them for: cracking down on crime. Trump's idea for putting troops in Chicago is often lumped together with his efforts to use them in Los Angeles and Washington, DC. But it's also different in key ways. In Los Angeles, the Guard and the Marines were deployed in response to immigration protests – what the administration claimed was a rebellion. (Breyer says there was no such actual rebellion.) In DC, the ostensible purpose was a broader effort to crack down on crime. But Trump has an unusual level of authority in the nation's capital because of its status as a federal district. In Chicago, Trump has indicated he would be using the troops for the latter purpose, but without the same authorities at his disposal. It would be the first time he would use the military for broadscale, domestic law enforcement outside of DC. Breyer now indicates such a thing would be illegal. The Posse Comitatus Act bars the use of the military "to execute the laws," except when "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." Breyer ruled that the administration "willfully" violated this act in Los Angeles because it "systematically used armed soldiers … and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence." Breyer significantly limited what those troops are allowed to do. He said they could not engage in "arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants," unless the administration can identify some kind of valid exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. But again, that's just in California. If those limits were to apply to a situation like Chicago, it would really curtail the actual value of deploying the troops. "This is a setback for Trump's use of the military to engage in law enforcement operations that fall outside of protecting federal buildings and people," Emory University law professor Mark P. Nevitt said. Syracuse University law professor emeritus William C. Banks said the ruling "provides the frame for any other places Trump might want to deploy troops." And Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the liberal-leaning Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, called Breyer's ruling a "place to start" that could "certainly inform how other courts look at these questions." "In court, the president's going to have to use a different rationale" than crime control, Goitein said of potential justification for using troops in Chicago. "I think it's going to be about protecting federal buildings and functions, or immigration enforcement." Indeed, after Breyer's ruling, the administration suggested it had actually respected the line between protecting federal property and personnel, and conducting law enforcement. "This is a false narrative and a misleading injunction," acting US attorney Bill Essaylisaid on X. "The military has never engaged in direct law enforcement operations here in LA." But the word "direct" is the operative word there. In fact, Breyer noted that the administration told troops that they had the authority to engage in less-direct forms of law enforcement. He included an image of a slide that isolated "security patrols," "traffic control," "crowd control" and "riot control" alongside other forms of prohibited law enforcement actions. He said troops were told these forms of law enforcement were subject to a constitutional exception, meaning troops could engage in them. The administration ispreparing to conducta major immigration enforcement operation in Chicago as soon as this week, CNN has reported, with the National Guard possibly helping in a peacekeeper capacity if needed, akin to Los Angeles following protests. But Trump has repeatedly indicated that sending troops to Chicago is about law enforcement – and White House officials have made clear those immigration plans are separate from that. Trump has often compared what he intends to do in Chicago to what he has done in DC. And he has repeatedly pointed to Chicago's crime problems – versus, say, a supposed rebellion in Los Angeles – to justify potentially sending in the troops. Breyer repeatedly pointed to Trump's designs on possibly expanding his use of troops to other cities like Chicago, apparently anticipating what could lie ahead. He said this amounted to "creating a national police force with the President as its chief." To the extent that's truly Trump's goal, the effort has suffered a significant early setback. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com
