In a late-night ruling on Thursday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals placed a hold on a previous court order demanding President Donald Trump to relinquish control of thousands of California National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles to Governor Gavin Newsom.
The emergency stay from the 9th Circuit follows a ruling from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, which stated that President Trump acted unlawfully when he mobilized the Guard members amid protests concerning immigration enforcement and must return them to the state by noon on Friday.
A panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit—comprising two judges appointed by Trump and one appointed by President Biden—has scheduled a hearing for the following Tuesday, ensuring that the troops will remain under federal control throughout the weekend.
In his comprehensive 36-page decision, Breyer declared that Trump’s actions were illegal, exceeding his statutory authority while also violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Breyer expressed concern regarding the implications of the Trump administration’s stance suggesting that protests against the federal government, a fundamental civil liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment, could be interpreted as inciting rebellion.
Governor Newsom, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with the state of California, deemed the ruling a significant victory for democracy.
“Today was really about the test of democracy, and today we passed the test,” Newsom stated during a press briefing in San Francisco, where the California Supreme Court is located.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta remarked on the ruling as a pivotal early sign that the court recognizes the merits of their argument after a swift review of the case’s facts.
“We aren’t in the throes of a rebellion,” Bonta asserted. “We are not under threat of an invasion. The federal government is not impeded from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend did not warrant the deployment of military troops, and their presence only exacerbated the situation.”
The Trump administration wasted no time in filing a notice of appeal after the ruling on Thursday.
During the hearing, Judge Breyer appeared doubtful about the Department of Justice’s claim that courts lack the capacity to question the president’s judgment regarding significant legal questions—specifically whether the protests in Los Angeles constituted a rebellion or the threat thereof.
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer emphasized. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”
President Trump and his administration maintain that the mobilization of the National Guard is lawful under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code regarding Armed Forces.
This section permits the president to federalize the National Guard in the event of a rebellion or a perceived danger thereof against the government’s authority.
Judge Breyer found that the protests in Los Angeles did not meet the criteria for rebellion, noting that while some violence occurred, the Trump administration failed to present sufficient evidence of an organized uprising against the government as a whole.
Breyer stated that the overwhelming evidence indicated that protesters were rallying to express their opposition to immigration raids.
Title 10 furthermore stipulates that orders issued by the president must be processed through the governors of the respective states.
As governor, Newsom holds the position of commander in chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo to the head of the California National Guard, mobilizing nearly 2,000 troops, which was subsequently relayed to Newsom’s office.
According to the lawsuit, neither Newsom nor his office consented to this mobilization.
In response, Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, requesting the retraction of the troop deployment, describing it as a significant breach of state sovereignty that appeared intentionally crafted to stoke tensions while simultaneously depriving the state of resources needed elsewhere.
Breyer questioned the legality of the action, asking, “I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if in fact you didn’t send it to him. As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it’s going through?”
However, Breyer was less inclined to assess the legality of Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys representing California pointed out that 140 Marines were set to be sent as replacements for the just mobilized Guardsmen.
Protests erupted throughout Los Angeles on the preceding Friday, triggered by a series of immigration raids conducted by ICE agents in the area. While many protesters were peaceful, a few among them engaged in violent and vandalistic behavior, prompting President Trump to hastily deploy the California National Guard.
He further ordered active-duty Marines to join the operation shortly thereafter.
Trump argued that the deployment was necessary to handle what he referred to as “violent, instigated riots,” claiming that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”
Judge Breyer commented that the Trump administration identified a few isolated violent incidents related to the protests, and from these incidents, he noted, they boldly asserted that state and local officials were incapable of controlling the rioters.
Breyer emphasized, “It is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws.”
In support of California’s position in this case, attorneys general from 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto, have voiced their backing.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-12/federal-court-california-challenge-trump-marines-national-guard-deployment
