A federal appeals court in California has temporarily ruled that President Donald Trump can maintain control over the California National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, effectively blocking Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to regain authority over them.
This decision marks the latest development in a series of court rulings regarding the control of the National Guard amid heightened tensions stemming from protests against federal immigration policies. Just two weeks prior, President Trump announced his decision to federalize the National Guard in response to unrest, asserting that it was necessary for the protection of federal property and to ensure the safety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
The ruling, issued by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, temporarily sets aside a lower court’s decision made by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had previously ruled that Trump’s deployment of the Guard was illegal. In his detailed judgment, Breyer argued that Trump exceeded his statutory authority and infringed upon state powers as outlined in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Breyer described the protests in Los Angeles, while marked by instances of violence, as falling short of qualifying as a rebellion against federal authority—a point that the appeals court ultimately disagreed with.
The appeals panel contended that the unrest justified Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, stating that a president has the authority to mobilize the Guard to prevent interference with federal law enforcement activities. The court emphasized that it would defer significantly to the president’s discretion regarding such matters, noting the violent incidents recounted by administration attorneys, which included protesters utilizing Molotov cocktails and fireworks against law enforcement officials.
One specific incident cited involved a Customs and Border Patrol agent suffering a severe injury as a result of the unrest, illustrating the perceived need for federal intervention.
While the appeals court upheld the administration’s right to federalize the National Guard, it also acknowledged California’s concerns that the presence of the Guard could potentially exacerbate tensions between protesters and law enforcement—a claim the court dismissed as speculative.
Following the emergency declaration, Trump had mobilized approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines, despite strong objections from Governor Newsom, who argued that local law enforcement agencies were equipped to handle the protests without additional military presence.
Under normal conditions, National Guard units are typically under the command of state governors but can be federalized by the president when deemed necessary. The recent circumstances are unusual, as it is the first time in six decades that a president has activated a state’s National Guard against the will of its governor. The last instance occurred in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to Alabama during a civil rights demonstration.
Following the appeals court’s decision, President Trump took to social media, declaring it a significant victory and asserting that it was the federal government’s role to protect American cities when local police are inadequate. He has also publicly criticized Governor Newsom, labeling him as “incompetent and ill-prepared” amid a series of escalating public arguments between the two leaders.
Governor Newsom responded to the ruling by asserting that the legal battle is far from over, reiterating that President Trump is not above the law.
At a recent court hearing, California’s attorneys argued that Trump’s actions to take control of the National Guard were unlawful and circumvented the proper channels, emphasizing that they were not consulted prior to the federalization decision. Newsom has maintained that previous calls for military intervention would only escalate existing tensions between demonstrators and law enforcement, suggesting that local agencies were already managing the situation competently.
Although California’s legal team sought to block Trump’s deployment of the Marines as well, the judge did not make a determination on that matter, as the Marines had not yet been dispatched to the area.
The tensions leading to this legal clash escalated as protests erupted in Los Angeles against aggressive ICE tactics, which Governor Newsom has said he was not consulted about before Trump’s unilateral decision.
The appeals court’s rapid response to the lower court’s order demonstrated the urgency of the matter, as the ruling to halt Breyer’s decision did not take long to materialize. The upcoming hearing scheduled in the lower court aims to address who will control the National Guard, echoing the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding Trump’s federalization of troops in California.
In the reformed legal landscape, as federal and state powers collide, the implications of this case could resonate well beyond individual protests, potentially influencing the future dynamics between state leaders and the federal government.
image source from：opb
