The judge presiding over California’s lawsuit against the Trump administration challenged the federal government’s authority and rationale for continuing to maintain command over the national guard troops it deployed to Los Angeles earlier this year.

The Trump administration federalized the state’s national guard in June, dispatching about 4,000 troops in response to protests in the city over immigration raids, despite opposition from the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom. The state quickly filed a lawsuit, with Newsom calling the move unprecedented and illegal, and the case has been unfolding in the courts for months.

During a hearing in San Francisco on Friday, Judge Charles Breyer appeared skeptical of the federal government’s case, according to a report from the Associated Press. He argued the situation in Los Angeles had changed since the troops were first deployed, and questioned whether the administration could command the state’s national guard indefinitely.

“No crisis lasts forever,” he said. “I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go. That’s the way it works.”

He pressed an attorney for the government for any evidence that state authorities were either unable or unwilling to help keep federal personnel and property in the area safe and noted Donald Trump had access to tens of thousands of active-duty troops in California.

California has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction in order to return control of the remaining national guard troops in Los Angeles to the state, but Breyer did not immediately rule. He has previously ruled that the deployment was illegal, and ruled the administration must return control of the troops to California, but a ruling by an appeals court panel put the decision on hold.

The justice department attorney Eric Hamilton said federal law gave the president the power to extend control of state guard troops as long as he deems 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 to 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 US 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.