Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
President Donald Trump acted within his legal authority when he federalized California National Guard troops to respond to protests against federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday night.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration made a “strong showing” that it would ultimately prevail against California’s legal challenge to the deployment. The decision overturns a temporary restraining order sought by California Governor Gavin Newsom and hands control of the Guard troops to Trump for the time being.
Court: Deference Due, But Limits Exist
While the panel rejected Trump’s claim that the president’s power over the National Guard is “completely insulated from judicial review,” the court emphasized that presidential decisions regarding troop deployment are owed “high deference.”
“Affording the President that deference,” the panel wrote, “we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.”
It marked the first time since 1965 that a president has federalized National Guard troops without the consent of a governor.
Background: Tensions Over Immigration Raids
The court’s decision comes after weeks of escalating protests in Los Angeles, where demonstrators gathered outside federal buildings to oppose immigration raids carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Trump administration argued that local law enforcement could not fully contain the unrest, justifying the use of federalized troops.
The court also pointed to the Defense Secretary’s procedural role, noting that even without Newsom’s agreement, issuing the deployment “through” the governor likely met the legal requirement under federal statute.
Trump and Newsom Respond
Trump took a victory lap on Truth Social, hailing the court’s ruling as a “BIG WIN.”
“If our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them,” he wrote. “This is a Great Decision for our Country.”
Governor Newsom, who had sought to block the deployment, acknowledged the ruling but highlighted what he viewed as a critical legal limit.
“The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard,” Newsom said. “The President is not a king and is not above the law.”
Attorney General: “This Case Is Far from Over”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who filed the state’s lawsuit against the Trump administration on June 9, vowed to continue the legal fight.
“This case is far from over,” Bonta said, accusing the president of “authoritarian” overreach and of undermining the governor’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard.
The original restraining order — granted by a lower court — was designed to temporarily halt federal control of the Guard while the legal challenge proceeded. But Thursday’s ruling stayed that order pending full appeals, likely ensuring that the Guard will remain under federal command for the foreseeable future.
Broader Implications
Legal analysts say the ruling underscores the broad — but not unlimited — powers the president wields over state military forces during national emergencies or civil unrest.
“The court was clear that presidential discretion in this area is significant,” said constitutional law scholar Kimberly Wehle, “but it also reminded us that it’s not absolute. Courts can still intervene if that power is abused.”
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, National Guard troops remain deployed amid continued tensions over immigration enforcement and the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities.
The case is expected to return to court in the coming months, potentially setting up a landmark showdown over the balance of power between state and federal authority — and the president’s use of the military within U.S. borders.
