Washington — A federal appeals court has blocked a lower court’s order requiring President Trump to relinquish control of California’s National Guard, allowing the continued deployment of troops amid ongoing immigration protests. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit provides a significant legal victory for the administration, facilitating the presence of approximately 4,000 National Guard members in Los Angeles.
Earlier this month, Trump invoked Title 10, a federal law that enables the president to federalize the National Guard in response to imminent threats or disturbances. This action was in reaction to escalating demonstrations in Los Angeles tied to recent immigration enforcement operations, prompting the deployment of both National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to the area.
California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the federalization and filed a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that the president had overstepped his authority. A federal district judge, Charles Breyer, sided with Newsom last week, prohibiting the deployment of California National Guard members and ordering the troops to revert to state control. This initial ruling was limited to the National Guard, leaving the deployment of Marines untouched.
The Trump administration quickly appealed Breyer’s decision, successfully securing a temporary stay from the 9th Circuit while the case is reviewed. In their Thursday ruling, the appellate judges underscored the president’s statutory authority under Title 10, which allows for the mobilization of the National Guard under specific circumstances, such as addressing rebellion or enforcing federal laws.
In their analysis, the judges emphasized that while courts maintain oversight on presidential powers, a significant deference must be granted to decisions regarding troop deployments. They cited concerns raised by the administration regarding protests that obstructed immigration enforcement activities as a valid basis for the president’s actions.
Additionally, the 9th Circuit concluded that the federal government was not required to obtain Governor Newsom’s approval to call up the National Guard, despite his claims referencing a provision that suggests gubernatorial consultation. The court clarified that this provision did not impart veto authority to state governors over such federal actions.
The Justice Department defended Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard, stating that the deployment was necessary to protect federal interests and maintain order during the protests. The administration characterized the demonstrations as bordering on rebellion, while California authorities argued for less aggressive measures to address the unrest that ensued.
The state’s legal representatives voiced concerns that the ongoing presence of National Guard troops could exacerbate tensions in Los Angeles. They pointed out that the president’s decision to federalize the troops lacked appropriate consultation with state leadership, a departure from the norms typically followed in such situations.
Historically, it has been over six decades since a U.S. president unilaterally deployed the National Guard without a request from the state’s government, with President Lyndon B. Johnson being the last to do so. Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama in 1965 during significant civil rights demonstrations.
As immigration enforcement escalates nationwide, Trump announced plans to extend enforcement operations to major cities, including Chicago and New York. As tensions mount over immigration policies and federal interventions, the legal battle over control of the National Guard reflects broader struggles between state and federal authority amid rising civil unrest.