A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump can maintain control of California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, delivering a significant legal defeat to Governor Gavin Newsom’s challenge of the federal takeover.
The 38-page decision by judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller, and Jennifer Sung overturned a lower court ruling that had favored Newsom’s argument that Trump violated his gubernatorial sovereignty. The panel concluded that Trump acted within his legal authority when he federalized approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops on June 7, 2025, in response to protests following federal immigration enforcement raids in Los Angeles.
The appeals court determined that while presidents do not possess unlimited power to seize control of state troops, the Trump administration presented sufficient evidence to justify the deployment. The judges cited violent acts by protesters who had thrown rocks, concrete blocks, and Molotov cocktails in the streets, while also vandalizing federal property during demonstrations earlier this month.
Trump federalized the National Guard through a presidential memo citing a rarely used federal statute that permits deployment when the president faces foreign invasion, domestic rebellion, or inability to execute federal laws with regular forces. This marked the first instance since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.
The court rejected the Trump administration’s most sweeping claim that presidential decisions to federalize National Guard troops are completely beyond judicial review. However, the judges emphasized that their review must be highly deferential to presidential authority. They stated that Trump’s decision fell within a permissible “range of honest judgment” regarding measures needed to suppress violence and restore order.
The ruling indefinitely blocks U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s previous order that would have returned control of the National Guard to Newsom. Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, had sided with California and argued that Trump violated Title 10 protocols for calling in the Guard during a rebellion.
Two of the three appellate judges, Bennett and Miller, were appointed by Trump during his previous term, while Judge Sung was appointed by President Joe Biden. Despite the mixed composition, the panel reached a unanimous decision favoring the Trump administration’s position.
Trump celebrated the victory on Truth Social, declaring it a major win for presidential power to deploy the National Guard. He indicated the decision extends beyond California, suggesting he may consider federalizing state National Guard troops elsewhere if local police prove unable to maintain order.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment with the ruling but emphasized that the legal battle continues. He criticized what he characterized as the Trump administration’s unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into communities. Bonta noted that senior military leaders from multiple administrations have affirmed that military use on U.S. soil should be rare, serious, and legally clear.
Governor Newsom acknowledged disappointment with the appeals court decision but welcomed the panel’s rejection of Trump’s claim of unreviewable presidential authority. “The President is not a king and is not above the law,” he indicated, vowing to continue challenging what he termed Trump’s authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens.
The deployment initially prompted Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to impose a weeklong curfew in downtown areas, though she later eased and eventually lifted the restrictions as protests diminished. Bass and other California leaders maintained that local law enforcement agencies were capable of addressing the unrest without federal military intervention.
The appeals court also addressed technical aspects of the law requiring presidential orders to be issued “through” state governors. The panel concluded this requirement was satisfied when Trump’s order was delivered to California’s adjutant general, who is authorized under state law to issue orders in the governor’s name.
Legal experts noted the decision reflects the court’s evolution from the country’s most liberal to one of its most balanced since Trump’s first term. The ruling grants enormous deference to presidential national security decisions, an area where courts historically provide minimal oversight of executive authority.
California retains several legal options moving forward. The state could request the full appeals court to rehear the matter through an en banc review, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Judge Breyer is scheduled to conduct a hearing Friday on California’s request for a preliminary injunction, though the appeals court decision significantly complicates the state’s legal strategy.
The case continues operating on multiple legal tracks, including the appeals court decision, Friday’s preliminary injunction hearing, and the full merits trial that would determine the deployment’s ultimate legality through prolonged litigation.
