A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously sided with President Donald Trump on Thursday evening, allowing him to maintain control of California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles over Governor Gavin Newsom’s objections.
The 38-page decision overturned a lower court ruling that had favored Newsom’s argument that Trump trampled on his sovereignty as governor. The panel concluded that Trump was within his legal right to use presidential power to federalize approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in response to protests following federal immigration enforcement raids in Los Angeles earlier this month.
Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller, and Jennifer Sung wrote that while presidents do not have unfettered power to seize control of state troops, the Trump administration had presented sufficient evidence showing a defensible rationale for the deployment. The court cited violent acts by protesters who had thrown rocks, concrete blocks, and Molotov cocktails in the streets while vandalizing federal property.
The ruling indefinitely blocks a previous order by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer that would have returned control of the National Guard to Newsom. Trump had federalized the troops through a rarely used federal statute that allows presidential mobilization of the Guard when facing foreign invasion, rebellion, or when unable to execute federal laws with regular forces.
The deployment marked the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard force without a request from that state’s governor. Trump hailed the decision as a major victory on Truth Social, stating: “BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard!”
The appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s broader claim that presidential decisions to activate the National Guard are completely beyond judicial review. However, the judges emphasized that such reviews must be highly deferential to presidential authority, particularly regarding national security decisions and military deployment.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment with the ruling but indicated the legal battle would continue. He described the Trump administration’s action as unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard, arguing that state and local law enforcement had responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence during otherwise peaceful protests.
Governor Newsom welcomed one aspect of the court’s decision, noting that it rejected Trump’s sweeping claim that he could federalize the National Guard without judicial scrutiny. The governor indicated he would press forward with challenges to what he characterized as authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens.
The three-judge panel consisted of Bennett and Miller, both Trump appointees, and Sung, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. This composition reflects the changing dynamics of the Ninth Circuit, which has shifted from being considered the country’s most liberal appeals court to one of its most balanced since Trump’s first term.
Legal experts noted the decision was expected given the court’s historical deference to presidential authority in national security matters. The judges acknowledged that several issues remain unresolved, including whether the Trump administration’s use of military personnel in Los Angeles violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using military personnel for civilian law enforcement.
The court addressed California’s technical argument that Trump violated statutory requirements by not issuing orders directly through the governor. The panel disagreed, finding that directing orders to the adjutant general of the California National Guard, who is authorized under state law to issue orders in the governor’s name, satisfied the legal requirement.
California has several options moving forward, including asking the full appeals court to rehear the matter en banc or appealing directly to the Supreme Court. A separate hearing before Judge Breyer was scheduled for Friday to consider arguments on a preliminary injunction and potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
The deployment was initiated through a presidential memo on June 7, citing the need to protect federal employees and property during protests that erupted following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the Los Angeles area. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had imposed a weeklong curfew in downtown areas following the deployment, though she has since eased and eventually lifted the restriction as tensions decreased.
The case continues to develop across multiple legal tracks, with California pursuing both immediate relief through injunctions and longer-term challenges to the fundamental authority claimed by the Trump administration in deploying federal military forces within state boundaries without gubernatorial consent.
