On Friday, a federal judge critically examined the Trump administration’s justification for continuing to oversee California National Guard troops, initially sent to Los Angeles in June due to violent demonstrations.

During a hearing in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer pointed out that the situation in Los Angeles has evolved since the troops were first deployed. He questioned the administration’s authority to maintain control over state Guard forces indefinitely.

“Crises are not eternal,” Judge Breyer remarked, adding, “Our experience shows that crises emerge and eventually subside. That’s the natural order.”

He challenged the government’s attorney to provide proof that state officials were either incapable or unwilling to ensure the safety of federal personnel and property. Judge Breyer also mentioned that President Donald Trump had access to a large number of active-duty troops in California.

The state of California has requested that Judge Breyer issue a preliminary injunction to return control of the remaining California National Guard troops in Los Angeles back to state authority. Although Judge Breyer did not make an immediate decision, he has previously ruled against the administration’s control over the California National Guard, deeming the deployment unlawful.

Trump initially called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in response to the protests over his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws, but that number had dropped to several hundred by late October, with only a 100 or so troops remaining in the Los Angeles area.

Justice Department Attorney Eric Hamilton said federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state Guard troops as long as he deems that necessary.

The remaining troops in Los Angeles were allowing immigration agents to continue their mission and protecting federal property, he said, noting someone threw two incendiary devices into a federal building on Monday.

The court did not have the authority to review how the president manages a Guard mission that is in progress, but even if it could, it had to consider the violence this summer, Hamilton said.

“We cannot turn a blind eye to what happened in Los Angeles in June of this year,” he said.

Trump’s call up of the California National Guard was the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. They were stationed outside a federal detention center downtown where protesters gathered, and later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

California sued, and Breyer issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to return control of the Guard troops to California. An appeals court panel, however, put that decision on hold. Breyer was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

California argued that the president was using Guard members as his personal police force in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs.

The administration said courts could not second-guess the president’s decision that violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute U.S. laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion.

In September, Breyer ruled after a trial that the deployment violated the law. Other judges have blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago.