SAN FRANCISCO (BN24) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump may retain control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following violent protests over immigration enforcement operations, delivering a significant victory for presidential authority over state military forces.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court decision that had found Trump acted illegally when he federalized California National Guard units without permission from Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment marked the first instance since 1965 that a president activated state National Guard forces over gubernatorial opposition.
The three-judge panel concluded that Trump likely exercised lawful authority in seizing control of the California National Guard, determining that the administration presented sufficient evidence to justify the extraordinary federal intervention. The court cited documented violence by protesters against federal officers and property as grounds supporting the president’s decision.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. “Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows.”
The ruling emphasized that while presidential power to commandeer state military forces is not unlimited, the federal government’s interest in preventing such incidents constitutes a significant justification for intervention. The court found that documented attacks on federal personnel and facilities provided a defensible rationale for Trump’s actions.
Additionally, the appeals panel determined that even if the federal government failed to provide required notification to California’s governor before federalizing the National Guard, Newsom lacked authority to veto the presidential order once issued.
Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, characterizing the ruling as a “BIG WIN” and suggesting broader implications for federal intervention in other jurisdictions. “All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,” the president wrote.
Governor Newsom expressed disappointment with the court’s decision to allow Trump continued control over California’s National Guard forces while acknowledging one favorable aspect of the ruling. “The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,” Newsom stated. “The President is not a king and is not above the law.”
The Democratic governor vowed to continue challenging what he characterized as “Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,” indicating the legal battle will proceed despite the appeals court setback.
The case originated when Newsom filed suit to block Trump’s command of California National Guard units, initially securing a favorable ruling from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Judge Breyer had determined that Trump exceeded his legal authority, finding that federal law permits presidential control only during “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”
“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,'” Breyer wrote in his original decision. The judge, appointed by former President Bill Clinton and brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, concluded that the circumstances did not meet the statutory threshold for federal intervention.
The Trump administration challenged Breyer’s ruling, arguing that courts cannot second-guess presidential decisions regarding national security and public order. The administration quickly obtained a temporary halt from the appeals court, allowing continued federal control during the litigation process.
Two of the three appeals court judges hearing the case were appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges indicated that federal law grants presidents considerable latitude in deploying military forces and suggested courts should exercise restraint in reviewing such decisions.
The ruling carries broader implications for presidential authority to deploy soldiers within the United States, particularly as Trump has directed immigration officials to prioritize deportation operations in other Democratic-controlled cities. The decision establishes precedent for federal intervention in situations where state and local authorities oppose presidential deployment of National Guard forces.
Trump has argued that the military deployment was necessary to restore public order in Los Angeles, while Newsom contended that the federal intervention inflamed existing tensions, undermined local authority, and wasted public resources. Immigration-related protests in the area have reportedly diminished in recent weeks.
The appeals court decision ensures that California National Guard units will remain under federal command as the underlying lawsuit continues through the judicial system. The case represents a significant test of the balance between federal executive power and state authority over military forces during domestic unrest.
Legal experts suggest the ruling may influence future disputes over presidential deployment of National Guard forces, particularly in situations where governors oppose federal intervention in their states during civil disturbances or emergency situations.
