A federal judge on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump’s actions “illegal” and wrote that he “must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

Breyer, sitting in California, issued the order after holding a hearing earlier Thursday, but he put his order on hold until noon Friday. The Trump administration has already filed a notice that it’s appealing his order to the federal appeals court that covers California. The appeal could quickly reach the Supreme Court.

Breyer said his task at this early stage in the litigation was to determine whether the president followed proper procedures.

“He did not,” wrote Breyer (who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer).

“His actions were illegal,” the judge wrote, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Breyer wrote that it’s “well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.”

State officials had argued in an urgent motion Tuesday that the Trump administration’s use of the military and the federalized National Guard for general law enforcement activities “creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest.”

California officials emphasized that the police — not the military — enforce the law in the United States. They criticized the federal government for seeking to bring the military and a “warrior culture” to American cities and towns. “Now, they have turned their sights on California with devastating consequences, setting a roadmap to follow across the country,” they wrote in their motion for a temporary restraining order. California officials said the protests have largely been peaceful and that when they haven’t been, local and state law enforcement have been able to handle it.

The Trump administration argued that granting a restraining order “would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief’s military directives” and that it would be “unprecedented” and “dangerous.”

California’s restraining order motion Tuesday followed its initial complaint, filed Monday in the same case, against Trump’s invocation of the military authority Saturday. The state said Trump “used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the State’s National Guard.”

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The union representing more than 45,000 grocery store workers from Santa Barbara to San Diego voted Wednesday, June 11 to authorize a strike against supermarket chains Albertsons and Kroger.

No date has been set for a strike.

Also see: Southern California union leaders say 2025 labor surge is most in decades

The United Food and Commercial Workers labor contract expired March 2, and talks have been on-again, off-again after the chief federal mediator was fired earlier this year as part of Trump administration cuts to the federal government.

The union said 90% of its members voted yes to authorize their bargaining team to call for an Unfair Labor Practice strike, protesting alleged labor violations by Albertson and Kroger during the negotiations. An Unfair Labor Practice refers to actions taken by employers or unions that violate the rights of employees or union members, as defined by labor laws.

Spokespersons with Albertsons Cos., which owns Vons and Pavilions, and Kroger Co., which runs Ralphs, the chain’s largest supermarket unit, were not immediately available for comment.

A separate strike authorization vote is planned with San Bernardino-based Stater Bros. in the coming weeks, UFCW Local 324 President Andrea Zinder said. “Stater has been very difficult at the bargaining table.”

Also see: Stater Bros. lays off store clerks, a first for the 89-year-old chain

Zinder said the union hopes to get Isael Hermosillo, the 13-year veteran mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, back to the negotiation table. She said he has been kept out of the talks by the federal government, even after the labor unions and supermarket chains agreed to pay him a “per diem” for his expertise.

A freeze on his service was recently lifted, so he likely will be available for the next supermarket talks June 25-27, Zinder said.

“The latest information is that he will be able to participate in late June. He wants to do that,” Zinder said.

Two other chains, Encino-based Gelson’s Markets and Super A Foods, a family-owned supermarket chain based in Commerce that caters to Latino and Asian shoppers in the Los Angeles area, each agreed to extend their labor contracts, which also expired in March. They have historically gone along with the labor contracts negotiated by Albertsons, Ralphs and Stater Bros., Zinder explained.

In total, the five supermarket chains employ more than 65,000 food workers, she said.

UFCW did not elaborate on the unfair labor violations.

Seven UFCW local unions from Santa Barbara to San Diego are working on three-year labor contracts with their respective supermarket chains. Details on what the unions want from the grocery chains are pending, but Zinder previously said that food workers are seeking better pay, affordable healthcare benefits, a better pension and more staffing.

“For four months, we’ve negotiated with Kroger and Albertsons, offering solutions to the staff shortage crisis that hurts store operations, working conditions, and customer service,” UFCW said in a statement. “The companies have dismissed our proposals and claimed that our concerns were ‘anecdotal,’ downplaying the real challenges we and our customers face daily.

“At the same time, the companies have broken labor laws by engaging in unlawful surveillance, interrogation of members at actions, threats, and retaliation for union activity. This is unacceptable.”