US Court Allows Trump to Retain Control of CA National Guard for Now

• U.S. appeals court says Trump likely acted within his authority.
• Newsom can contest the National Guard’s deployment under different laws.
• California’s governor states, “The president is not a king and is not above the law.”

A U.S. appeals court allowed Donald Trump to maintain control over California’s National Guard on Thursday while the state’s Democratic governor challenges the Republican president’s use of troops to suppress protests in Los Angeles.

The decision to deploy troops in Los Angeles sparked a nationwide dialogue about the military’s role on American soil, further intensifying the political climate in the country’s second-largest city.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco continued to suspend U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s ruling from June 12, which stated that Trump had unlawfully activated the National Guard into federal service.

The panel suggested that Trump likely acted within his legal authority and mentioned that his administration probably followed the necessary protocol to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom. Even if coordination was lacking, they found that Newsom did not have the power to veto Trump’s orders.

“While we believe the president likely has the authority to federalize the National Guard, our ruling does not address what actions federalized troops can undertake,” the judges clarified in their opinion.

Newsom still has the option to contest the deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines under alternative laws that restrict the military’s involvement in civilian law enforcement.

The governor can present these arguments during a court hearing on Friday before Judge Breyer.

In a post on X following the ruling, Newsom committed to continuing his legal challenge.

“The president is not a king and is not above the law,” he stated. “We will pursue our challenge against President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military personnel against our citizens.”

Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, saying, “This is a great ruling for our country, and we will keep protecting and defending law-abiding Americans.” He added, “This is much larger than Gavin; across the United States, if our cities and people need protection, we are prepared to step in if state and local law enforcement fail to do so.”

Breyer ruled against Trump’s actions in a lawsuit initiated by Newsom, determining that Trump violated federal law by failing to coordinate with the governor regarding the activation of the National Guard.

Furthermore, he asserted that the conditions stipulated in the statute for such federal action, like a rebellion against federal authority, were not present.

Breyer instructed Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. However, the 9th Circuit temporarily halted this decision mere hours later. Amid protests and upheaval in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration policies, he had assumed control of California’s National Guard on June 7, deploying 4,000 troops against Newsom’s wishes.

In addition to the National Guard, Trump also sent 700 U.S. Marines to the city after deploying the Guard. Breyer has yet to rule on the legality of mobilizing the Marine Corps.

During a hearing on whether to extend the hold on Breyer’s ruling, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers from California and the Trump administration about the extent to which the courts should review Trump’s authority for troop deployment.

The law specifies three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces: invasion, “rebellion or risk of rebellion” against the government, or a scenario where the U.S. government is unable to enforce its laws using regular forces.

The appeals court noted that the last condition was likely satisfied, citing incidents where protesters attacked vehicles belonging to immigration authorities and vandalized property, hindering law enforcement efforts.

The Justice Department claimed that once the president deems an emergency exists requiring the National Guard’s deployment, neither courts nor state governors can question that decision. The appeals court dismissed this notion.

The protests in Los Angeles persisted for over a week before they subsided, prompting Mayor Karen Bass to lift a previously imposed curfew.

In its June 9 lawsuit, California argued that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines infringed upon the state’s sovereignty and violated U.S. laws that prevent federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities.

The Trump administration countered that the troops were not involved in law enforcement but were merely safeguarding federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The panel from the 9th Circuit consists of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one judge appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden.