Two U.S. District Court decisions
Two significant U.S. District Court decisions were handed down in the first week of September 2025. One concerns the use of the U.S. military for domestic policing. The other ruling addressed the revocation of federal research grant funding from a university.
Military occupation in California
A landmark ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco on September 2, 2025, blocked President Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of U.S. Marines for domestic law enforcement in Los Angeles.
Summary of the Ruling
Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the 52-page decision:
Legal Basis
The court found that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act. This federal law prohibits the use of the U.S. military in civilian law enforcement without explicit congressional authorization.
Judge Breyer ruled that the federal government failed to follow proper procedures in nationalizing the California National Guard, thereby infringing on the state’s constitutional authority.
Prohibited Activities
The ruling enjoined federal troops—including National Guard and Marines—from engaging in:
Arrests, searches, seizures
Crowd control, riot response
Traffic enforcement, evidence collection
Acting as informants or conducting interrogations
Scope and Impact
The injunction applies only within California, meaning deployments in other states like D.C. or Chicago were not affected.
The court emphasized that the President cannot create a national police force with himself as its chief, calling such actions “illegal” and “authoritarian”4.
Civilian Disruption
Over 4,000 California National Guard members were pulled from essential civilian roles—medical, educational, law enforcement, and infrastructure—to support the federal mission.
The court noted this reallocation had serious consequences for public safety and state operations.
Political Fallout
Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta led the legal challenge, framing the deployment as a power grab and a threat to democratic governance.
The Trump administration appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, which temporarily paused the enforcement to review the case.
You can read the full ruling on California’s official government site, which includes all 52 pages of legal reasoning, factual findings, and constitutional analysis.
Revocation of research funding at Harvard University
On September 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Massachusetts ruled that the Trump administration’s freeze and termination of over $2 billion in federal research funding to Harvard—including $200 million in annual grants—was unlawful. It’s already being called one of the most consequential rulings on academic freedom in recent history.
Highlights from the Ruling
Legal Findings
Judge Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration’s freeze and termination of over $2 billion in federal research funding to Harvard—including $200 million in annual grants—was unlawful and retaliatory, violating both the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The administration had claimed the cuts were part of a crackdown on antisemitism. Still, the court found this rationale to be a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on elite universities.
Impacted Research Projects
The funding freeze jeopardized dozens of critical initiatives, including:
A predictive model for VA emergency rooms to assess suicidal veterans
ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) research
A NASA chip to measure astronaut radiation exposure for the Artemis II mission
A tuberculosis consortium across multiple institutions
Judge Burroughs noted that none of these projects had any link to antisemitism, and the freeze harmed the very communities the administration claimed to protect.
Permanent Injunction
The court vacated all “Freeze Orders” and “Termination Letters”
Federal agencies were permanently barred from cutting funds in retaliation for protected speech or without proper civil rights procedures
Broader Implications
The ruling affirms Harvard’s academic freedom and procedural rights, setting a precedent for how federal funding can—and cannot—be used as leverage against universities.
The White House has announced plans to appeal, calling the judge “activist” and maintaining that Harvard failed to protect students from harassment.
You can read the full decision and legal reasoning in Law Commentary’s detailed summary.
AI disclosure
This post was prepared with substantial assistance from Microsoft Corporations AI bot known as “Copilot.”
