Federal Appeals Court Sides With Trump on California National Guard Deployment
A federal appeals court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can maintain control over California National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles. The decision overturns a lower court order and comes despite strong objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has vowed to continue his legal challenge.
The ruling marks a significant moment in a legal battle over presidential authority and state sovereignty, particularly notable as it’s the first time since 1965 that a US president has federalized a state’s National Guard against the express wishes of its governor.
Background: Deployment Amid Protests
The dispute arose after President Trump federalized approximately 4,000 California National Guard members on June 7, ordering them into service for 60 days. The deployment followed protests in the Los Angeles area linked to federal immigration enforcement activities, including worksite raids and arrests.
The stated purpose of the federalization was to “protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property” and to prevent interference with federal officers, such as those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Administration attorneys cited incidents of violence, including protesters allegedly “pinning down” federal officers, throwing objects like concrete chunks and bottles, and using Molotov cocktails and mortar-style fireworks, resulting in injuries such as a Border Patrol agent suffering a shattered wrist.
California Governor Gavin Newsom strongly opposed the deployment, arguing it was unnecessary, unlawful, and inflammatory. Newsom contended that local law enforcement was fully capable of handling the situation and that deploying federal troops could escalate tensions. He also stated he was not consulted before the federalization order was issued and that the action was a waste of resources needed for state matters like wildfire preparedness.
Lower Court Finds Deployment Illegal
Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the federalization, arguing that Trump’s actions exceeded his statutory authority under Title 10 of the US Code (which governs federal use of the National Guard in cases of invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute laws) and violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer initially sided with Newsom on June 12, ruling in a 36-page decision that Trump’s deployment was illegal. Judge Breyer found that while there had been some isolated acts of violence, the protests in Los Angeles did not constitute a “rebellion” necessary to justify federal intervention under the cited statute, emphasizing the First Amendment right to protest. He ordered control of the Guard returned to the state.
Appeals Court Overturns Lower Ruling
However, within hours of Judge Breyer’s ruling, the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary block on his order. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a 38-page unanimous ruling allowing President Trump to maintain control of the troops, at least temporarily.
The appeals court panel found that the president likely acted within his statutory authority when federalizing the Guard for the specific purpose of protecting federal personnel and property. They noted that the president’s decision should be given “highly deferential” review by the courts based on longstanding precedent.
Crucially, the panel determined that the president’s “failure to issue the federalisation order directly ‘through’ the Governor of California” did not invalidate his otherwise lawful authority to call up the Guard for the stated purpose.
While siding with the Trump administration on the immediate control of the troops, the appeals court did reject the administration’s argument that the president’s decision to federalize the Guard was completely immune from judicial review. The court clarified that its ruling did not address the legality or nature of the specific activities the federalized troops might engage in once deployed, leaving open potential avenues for future legal challenges, such as those related to the use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement.
The court also dismissed California’s concern that the federal presence could escalate tensions as “speculative.”
Reactions and Ongoing Legal Battle
Following the 9th Circuit’s decision, President Trump hailed the ruling as a “BIG WIN” on his social media platform. He asserted the federal government’s role in providing protection if state and local police are unable to perform the job.
Governor Newsom expressed disappointment with the outcome but highlighted the court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of being above judicial review as a positive point. “Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” Newsom stated, vowing to “press forward with our challenge” against what he termed the “authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed this sentiment, stating that the case is “far from over.”
The legal battle is indeed ongoing. A hearing is scheduled before Judge Breyer to consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would return control of the troops to Newsom. Legal analysts suggest the appeals court’s ruling could influence Judge Breyer’s decision, as Newsom’s team must now meet a higher standard of proof to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the full case. Regardless of Judge Breyer’s next move, appeals are highly anticipated, and experts believe Trump is likely to retain control of the National Guard throughout the duration of the lower court’s proceedings and subsequent appeals. The possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court also remains, which could have significant implications for the scope of presidential power to deploy military forces domestically without state consent. The status of US Marines also deployed by Trump was not addressed in the appeals court ruling.
