Appeals Court Allows Trump To Keep Control Of National Guard In LA

On Thursday, in a stunning reversal, a federal appeals court ruled that Donald Trump can maintain control of California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles amid ongoing protests over immigration raids. 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked an earlier ruling from District Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled that Trump had unlawfully bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to federalize the state’s National Guard.

The three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by Trump, ruled unanimously, arguing that while presidential authority over the Guard isn’t absolute, the Trump administration had shown a “defensible rationale”; citing incidents of protestors allegedly pinning down federal officers and damaging property, including attacking a federal van and closing a government building. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order.

“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 panel said. “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 court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”

This controversial move is the first time since 1965 that a president has seized command of a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent. The decision sets a dangerous precedent by suggesting that executive overreach can override state sovereignty as long as it’s cloaked in “public safety” rhetoric, especially when those states are led by Democrats.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom immediately pushed back on the ruling, issuing separate statements with the promise to continue the fight. 

“This case is far from over,” Bonta said in a statement following the unanimous late Thursday ruling. “[It is] disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal. The Trump administration far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into our communities.”

Newsom echoed this sentiment in a statement, expressing disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard, vowing to press forward with the challenge against “Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

“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 said. “The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

On his Truth Social platform, Trump predictably celebrated the ruling, calling it a “BIG WIN” and suggesting that it’s the federal government’s right to step in and “get the job done if state and local police are unable to for whatever reason.”

Let’s be crystal clear, this case isn’t just about the protests in Los Angeles; it’s once again, about Trump’s attempt to expand the limits of presidential power under the lie of law and order. Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration and his targeting of Democratic-led cities is the latest decision to authorize the continued military presence in domestic cities while emboldening a precedent that presidents can bypass governors, inflame tensions, and frame constitutionally protected dissent as rebellion while overlooking treasonous acts and insurrections. 

This legal fight over who controls the National Guard isn’t just about troops; it’s a real attempt to squelch Trump’s continued attempt at federal overreach. It’s about the protection of democracy, states’ rights, and whether a president can play general in a political war he started. 

SEE ALSO:

Experts Sound The Alarm On New Rules For ICE Detention Center Visits

ICE Agents Claim Assaults Are Reasons For Masks, But That’s A Lie

Read more