Appellate court sides with Trump over Newsom in dispute over LA Guard deployment
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump likely acted within his authority when he federalized California’s National Guard during recent immigration protests in Los Angeles — despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel keeps a pause on a lower court’s temporary restraining order a week before that had directed the federal government to return control of Guard troops to Newsom. The appellate panel found Trump likely satisfied the legal threshold under Section 10 of the U.S. Code, and sided with the administration’s argument that local law enforcement had failed to contain violent attacks on federal agents and property.
The ruling represents the latest legal setback for Newsom, who warned that the June 8 deployment would inflame tensions and escalate unrest. A lower court had agreed with the governor, finding that the protests did not rise to the level of a rebellion and concluding Trump had exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority.
This case marks the most significant judicial review of presidential power to override a governor’s control of the National Guard since the Civil Rights era.
Judges Eric Miller and Mark Bennett, both Trump appointees, and Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, issued the 38-page ruling after hearing arguments Tuesday. The panel emphasized judicial deference to the president’s discretion during national emergencies.
Still, the court rejected Trump’s assertion that his actions were immune from judicial review. While acknowledging the “extraordinary” nature of the override, the judges concluded it was likely lawful under existing precedent granting the president broad discretion to determine when regular federal forces are insufficient to execute federal law.
“The authority to control the militia remains with the states absent a proper invocation of federal authority under the Constitution or federal statutes,” the panel wrote.
The court also criticized the process used to issue the deployment order.
Although federal law requires such orders to be issued “through” a state’s governor, the White House transmitted the order via California’s adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Matthew P. Beevers. The judges said this method likely met the statutory requirement under California law but noted it “blurred the lines of command and accountability in a manner inconsistent with both the Constitution and established military structure.”
Trump celebrated the ruling online, writing on Truth Social: “BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard! ... Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!”
Newsom, however, emphasized the limits of the appellate decision.
“Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” he said in a statement on X. “Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision disappointing but vowed to press on.
“The Trump Administration far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard,” Bonta said. “While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”
The deployment of 4,000 Guard members — along with 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms — marked the first time since 1965 that a president had federalized a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent.
The case returned to U.S. Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer’s court in San Francisco on Friday for a preliminary injunction hearing.
In light of the 9th Circuit’s appellate decision, Breyer requested additional briefs from both sides about what authority he has to modify or grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act, the law limiting the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.
These additional arguments are necessary because the act was not addressed in the 9th Circuit’s decision Thursday, Breyer said. The parties have until Monday to submit their briefs.
This story was originally published June 19, 2025 at 9:49 PM.
