A federal appeals court in California has temporarily sided with President Trump, allowing him to maintain control over California National Guard troops in Los Angeles. This ruling blocks, at least for now, Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to regain control of the Guard.
This is the latest development in a series of legal battles over control of the Guard. Trump federalized the Guard nearly two weeks ago, citing the need to protect federal property and prevent interference with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other federal officers – whose detention and deportation tactics had sparked protests.
The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sunday puts a hold on a prior ruling. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled a week prior that Trump was illegally using the Guard in L.A. and must return control to the state.
Breyer’s 36-page ruling, responding to Newsom’s lawsuit against Trump, asserted that Trump’s “actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Tenth Amendment clarifies the division of powers between state and federal governments.
Breyer also dismissed Trump’s claim that L.A.’s protests constituted a rebellion against federal authority, acknowledging some instances of violence but stating, “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion.”
However, the three-judge appeals panel on Sunday night disagreed with the lower court’s assessment that the unrest in L.A. didn’t justify Trump’s deployment of the Guard. The appeals court stated that a president can deploy the Guard to prevent interference with the execution of federal law, sidestepping the “rebellion” question.
The 38-page appeals court ruling highlighted incidents of violence presented by administration attorneys, including protesters targeting law enforcement (local and federal) with Molotov cocktails and “mortar-style fireworks.” The ruling stated that one Customs and Border Patrol agent suffered a “shattered wrist,” and it also noted damage to federal property.
While the appeals court rejected the administration’s argument that courts cannot review a president’s decision to activate the Guard, it emphasized that courts should be “highly deferential” to the president on this issue. The appeals court also dismissed California’s claim that the Guard’s presence could escalate tensions, deeming it “speculative.”
Trump federalized and deployed approximately 4,000 Guard members and 700 U.S. Marines on June 7, over Newsom’s objections, following a day of increasingly unrestrained protests against ICE tactics. Normally, National Guard units are under the command of state governors but can be federalized by the President.
Important Considerations:
- This ruling does not address the status of the Marines.
- Another hearing is scheduled in the lower court for Friday to further examine who should control the Guard in the short term while California’s challenge to Trump’s use of the Guard is considered.
In his initial order deploying the Guard, Trump asserted that attempts to impede immigration agents in L.A. constituted “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.” His lawyers presented images of burning cars and crowds blocking the movement of ICE agents.
This marks the first instance in 60 years that a president has activated a state’s National Guard over the state’s governor’s objections. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.
Trump celebrated the Sunday ruling on Truth Social as a “BIG WIN” and criticized Newsom as “incompetent and ill prepared.” Newsom responded in a statement that, “The fight doesn’t end here,” and that, “The President is not a king and is not above the law.” The two have been exchanging insults in recent weeks.
During a hearing on June 12, California’s attorneys argued Trump’s federalization of the National Guard troops was unlawful. Newsom has stated he was not consulted before Trump’s decision to take control of the Guard. The Democratic governor has also argued the military presence would increase tensions between protesters and law enforcement, and that local law enforcement could manage the protests effectively.
California’s attorneys also requested the courts to block Trump’s deployment of the Marines to L.A., but Judge Breyer declined to rule on that issue as they had not yet been deployed to the area.
Attorneys for the federal government argued Trump acted within his constitutional authority to activate the National Guard troops. They claimed the administration met the legal requirement to consult “through” Governor Newsom in mobilizing the National Guard by coordinating with the Guard’s adjutant general in California, who represents the governor.
Initially, Breyer ordered Trump to cede control of the Guard the next day. However, the appeals court blocked Breyer’s ruling within three hours. Sunday’s ruling denied California’s attempt to remove that block.
