A federal judge blocked the measure of President Donald Trump to deploy Troops from the California National Guard during protests for immigration raids in Los Angeles, qualifying the measure in “illegal” and ordering the Trump administration to return the control of the California National Guard to the control of Governor Gavin Newsom.

The judge’s order, which does not limit the use of Marines by Trump, does not enter into force until Friday at noon.

Calling the order of the judge “unprecedented” and an “extraordinary intrusion in the constitutional authority of the president as commander in chief”, the lawyers of the Trump administration presented an emergency motion before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trump administration asked the Court of Appeals to act from its application no later than 9 PM PST to give the administration time to request the “immediate relief” of the Supreme Court if necessary.

“At this early stage of the procedure, the Court must determine if the President followed the mandatory procedure of the Congress for his actions. He did not,” said United States District Judge Charles Breyer in his order granting the temporary restriction order requested by Newsom. “His actions were illegal: both exceeds the scope of his legal authority and violating the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, he must return the control of the California National Guard to the governor of the State of California.”

At a press conference, Newsom said he was “satisfied” for the judge’s ruling. “I want to clarify this, the National Guard will return under my authority for the morning, the National Guard will be deployed to what they were doing before Donald Trump commanded them,” said Newsom.

“The National Guard will return to border security, working on the application of drugs against and the application of fentanil newspapers, which include the lawyer of the law “,”, the loans of the Newsom “,”

Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bont submitted an emergency application on Tuesday to block what Trump called and the “unnecessary” and “illegal militarization” of the Department of Defense “after Trump issued a memorandum during the weekend that deployed more than 2,000 troops of the Los Angeles National Guard in Los Angeles, Amid the protests, on the objections of Newsom premises.

In his order, the judge pointed out the rights of the first amendment of the protesters and said: “The fact that some bad street actors get too far do not eliminate that right for all. The idea that protesters can cross the line so quickly between protected behavior and the” rebellion against the authority of the United States government “is innumerable and dangerous,” he wrote.

Breyer wrote that protests in Los Angeles “fall very short” of the legal requirements of a “rebellion” to justify a federal deployment. The rebellions must be armed, violent, organized, open and aim to cancel a government, he wrote. The protests in California do not meet any of those conditions, he found.

“The plaintiffs and citizens of Los Angeles face greater damage due to the continuous illegal militarization of their city, which not only influences the tensions with the protesters, threaten the greatest hostilities and the loss of lives, but deprives the State for two months of their own use of thousands of members of the National Guard to combat fires, combat the trade of Fentanyl and perform other critical functions,” order in your order.

“Regardless of the result of this case or any other, that only threatens serious injuries to the constitutional balance of power between federal and state governments, and establishes a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity,” the judge wrote.

About 4,000 national and 700 marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area after protests for immigration raids. California leaders claim that Trump inflamed the protests by sending the army when it was not necessary.

Since then, protests have spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle.

To send thousands of national guards to Los Angeles, Trump invoked section 12406 of Title 10 of the United States Code on armed services, allowing a federal deployment in response to a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States government.” In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal staff who perform their functions.

The judge did not decide whether the possible participation of the military in the application of immigration, being present with ice agents during the raids, violates the POSSE Comitatus Law of 1878, which prohibits the military from making the application of the civil law. The judge said he would listen to additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week.

During an early judicial hearing on Thursday, Breyer said during the 70 -minute hearing on Thursday that the main problem before him was if the president complied with the statute of title 10 and that the National Guard was “duly federalized.”

The Federal Government said that the president complied while arguing that the statute is not justicable and that the president has a complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue a court order to “counteract the president’s military trials.”

Meanwhile, the lawyer on behalf of the State of California and Newsom said that his position is that the National Guard was not legally federalized, and that the president deployed troops in the streets of a civil city in response to the disobedience perceived was an “expansive and dangerous conception of the Federal Executive Power.”

Bonta also argued in the emergency presentation that Trump did not meet the legal requirements for said federal deployment.

“To put it without surroundings, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there are civil disturbances that are not different from the episodes that occur regularly in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by the state and local authorities that work together,” Bont wrote.

Breyer had previously rejected California’s request to issue a temporary restriction order immediately and, on the other hand, established the audience for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to present an answer.

In his response, the lawyers of the Department of Justice asked the judge to deny the Newsom request of a temporary restriction order that would limit the military to protect federal buildings, arguing that such order would be equivalent to a “veto of the rufflers to the application of the Federal Law.”

“The extraordinary request of relief plaintiffs would judicially counteract the commander in the military directives of the boss, and would do so in the position of a temporary restriction order, no less. That would not have precedents. It would be constitutionally anatema. And it would be dangerous,” they wrote.

They also argued that California should not “adhere to the president’s judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary” and that a federal court should differ to the president’s discretion in military affairs.

Trump defended on Tuesday his decision to send to the National Guard the Marines, saying that the situation in Los Angeles was “out of control.”

“All I want is security. I just want a safe area,” he told reporters. “Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police could not handle it.”

Trump suggested that he sent the National Guard to the Marines to send a message to other cities so as not to interfere with ice operations or will find an equal or greater force.

“If we did not attack this with great force, you would have them throughout the country,” he said. “But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do, if they do, they will find an equal or greater force than we find here.”

Jeffrey Cook and Peter Charalambous, Alyssa Pon and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.