HOUSTON, United States — A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can retain control of the California National Guard, even as Governor Gavin Newsom continues his legal challenge against the president’s federalization of state troops. The decision prolongs a significant legal confrontation over presidential authority during domestic unrest.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued the ruling Thursday, extending a pause it previously placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 decision. Breyer had declared that Trump’s action to take control of California’s National Guard was unconstitutional. However, the appeals court said in its unsigned order that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” under federal law to federalize the National Guard.
The legal battle began after President Trump mobilized nearly 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines on June 7, in response to escalating protests in Los Angeles. Demonstrators flooded the streets following Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids ordered by the president. The administration claimed that the deployment aimed to protect federal buildings and personnel, not engage in law enforcement activities.
Judge Breyer initially sided with Governor Newsom, ruling that Trump violated federal law by failing to properly coordinate with the governor before deploying troops. The court ordered the return of National Guard control to the state. But just hours later, the 9th Circuit Court blocked that decision temporarily, and now, it has extended that pause as the case proceeds through the courts.
Governor Newsom’s lawsuit argues that the situation in Los Angeles did not qualify as a “rebellion” under U.S. law, one of the three conditions under which a president can federalize a state’s National Guard. He emphasized that sporadic acts of violence during the protests were being effectively handled by state and local law enforcement, making military intervention unnecessary and unlawful. He further claims the action infringes on California’s state sovereignty.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that under federal law, once the president determines that an emergency exists, neither courts nor governors have the authority to override that judgment. Federal law allows such action in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when execution of federal laws is obstructed.
The 9th Circuit judges pressed both sides on the constitutional limits of presidential military authority and the judiciary’s role in such matters. Notably, Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps deployment, leaving another key issue unresolved.
While the latest ruling keeps President Trump’s control over California’s National Guard in place, California still has the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency intervention.
This case raises pressing questions about presidential emergency powers, states’ rights, and military involvement in civil matters, as America continues to grapple with political unrest and tensions over immigration enforcement.
