A federal court case with major implications for Donald Trump's agenda — namely his stated intent to send federal troops into US cities run by Democrats that he perceives to be crime-ridden — had its three-day hearing this week.

US District Judge Charles Breyer has already expressed his skepticism over the Trump administration's argument that a deployment of some 2,000 National Guard troops was necessary in Los Angeles in June, in order to quell immigration protests there — protests which never became very large or chaotic, even before the troops were deployed, though a few wayward Waymos were set on fire.

Judge Breyer issued a 36-page ruling on June 12 granting the State of California's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump and his administration, declaring that that president's "actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The Ninth Circuit quickly intervened, hours after Breyer's ruling, issuing a stay, and a week later returned with a ruling that sided with the Trump administration, finding that Trump "likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard," with regard to the restraining order, however they rejected the idea "that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith."

And the ball was tossed back to Breyer's court to hear the arguments regarding whether, as the State of California's lawyers contend, the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from engaging in local law enforcement.

Breyer seemed squarely on the side of the state in his June ruling, writing that "the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions."

But over the course of three days this week, Judge Breyer heard more specific arguments and details from both sides. As the Associated Press reports, Deputy Assistant Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply in this case because the Guard was deployed during a moment akind to an "invasion," when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government."

Hamilton further argued that the troops were providing protection for law enforcement officers, not conducting law enforcement themselves.

California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong pointed to multiple instances in which the troops exceeded the stated goal of protecting federal property and personnel, like setting up roadblocks and perimeters on city streets, and actively assisting in the detention of individuals.

"For all the pretense and wordsmithing defendants have tried to employ, the facts are inescapable: The activities defendants have ordered [National Guard] troops to engage in across Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act," Strong said, per the AP.

One damning bit of testimony for Trump's side came from Major General Scott Sherman, who was commanding the National Guard troops in LA, and who testified Tuesday that he questioned aloud whether an operation in an LA city park could violate the law. As the AP reported, Sherman helped to rehearse a highly theatrical parade of federal agents on horseback through MacArthur Park, in a largely Latino part of the city, that occurred on July 7. Mayor Karen Bass called the event a "stunt" that was meant to intimidate people, which mostly just scared some children at a day camp there.

Sherman testified that he questioned whether military vehicles ought to be forming a perimeter along Wilshire Boulevard, which cuts through the park, and he said that  Border Patrol El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino then "questioned his loyalty."

Sherman also explained that the operation had been rehearsed several times, and was originally planned on Father's Day, June 15, but he expressed his concerns that the park could be crowded with families that day, and that Border Patrol agents could be easily overwhelmed by the crowds.

Judge Breyer's ruling in the case is expected in the coming weeks. Regardless of how he rules, the decision will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Previously: Military-Style Sweep of City Park in LA Could Be Harbinger of Things to Come

Top image: Photo by Getty Images