Though the unrest in Los Angeles sparked by federal law enforcement disputes has subsided, the legal battle over control of the National Guard remains ongoing.
On the evening of June 19 local time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump may continue to assume command and “federalize” the California National Guard pending the outcome of the lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom. This effectively allows Trump, in his capacity as president, to retain operational control over the state’s National Guard forces.
The unanimous decision was issued by a three-judge panel, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee.
The ruling temporarily overturns a prior injunction issued on June 12 by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California, which ordered the return of command authority over the National Guard to the state government.
Trump’s legal team cited Section 12406, Clause 3 of the U.S. Code, arguing that when the President deems “regular forces inadequate to enforce federal laws,” he is authorized to “federalize” a state’s National Guard.
However, the appellate court clarified that it does not agree with the federal government’s assertion that “presidential decisions are not subject to judicial review.” Still, in light of longstanding judicial deference and the standard of review for presidential military actions, the court found that Trump’s invocation of the relevant legal provision had a “reasonable legal basis.”
The decision also cited specific instances of protesters interfering with law enforcement, including throwing incendiary devices at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicles, damaging federal property, and carrying Molotov cocktails.
The federal government claimed that one Border Patrol agent suffered a wrist fracture due to an explosive device.
The appeals court also noted it was not ruling at this time on whether the federal government had violated the Posse Comitatus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act, nor would it comment on the legality of the Marine Corps deployment.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass recently announced the lifting of the city’s protest-related curfew. Demonstrations in Los Angeles have largely eased.
The tipping point of the unrest occurred on June 6, when ICE conducted surprise raids at multiple locations in Los Angeles without prior notification to local law enforcement agencies.
Reports indicate that ICE’s operations employed highly “militarized” tactics, with heavily armed officers and unmarked armored vehicles deployed in the streets—causing widespread public panic.
On the evening of June 6, approximately 200 protesters gathered outside a federal detention center in Los Angeles demanding the release of detained individuals. The situation escalated in the following days.
On June 7, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum deploying up to 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines into Los Angeles.
Governor Gavin Newsom responded by stating that the deployment had neither his authorization nor sufficient prior consultation.
This marks the first time in 60 years that a U.S. president has “federalized” a state’s National Guard to enforce federal directives despite explicit opposition from the state’s governor.
The last such instance occurred in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed troops and the National Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights activists—who were marching in support of Black voting rights—from suppression by local police.
Newsom criticized Trump’s deployment as escalating tensions. According to a June 19 report from the Los Angeles Times, dozens of protesters in Pasadena forced a group of Department of Homeland Security agents staying at a local hotel to leave, in protest of the administration’s mass deportation campaign.
On June 9, Newsom, on behalf of the California government, filed a lawsuit in state court accusing Trump of violating the Tenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by federalizing the state’s National Guard—an overreach of presidential authority that severely undermined California’s state sovereignty. In court filings, Newsom emphasized that under federal law, the president must obtain a governor’s consent to deploy state National Guard forces; otherwise, such deployments risk exacerbating local tensions and undermining civilian law enforcement. He further asserted that there was no genuine situation of “insurrection” or breakdown of federal law enforcement as Trump had claimed. Newsom warned that unauthorized deployments could endanger state sovereignty, inflame social conflict, and erode public trust in government.
During the proceedings, the Trump administration defended the legality of its actions, stating that all statutory conditions had been satisfied and that the deployment order had been transmitted through the Adjutant General of the California National Guard—a military officer appointed by the governor and acting on his behalf—therefore amounting to an order issued “through the governor.”
Trump’s attorneys argued that the federalized National Guard troops were tasked solely with protecting federal property and ICE personnel, not participating in local law enforcement or routine public safety duties.
In contrast, Judge Breyer, in a 36-page opinion, wrote that Trump’s actions “exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.” He noted that although some isolated incidents of violence occurred during the protests in Los Angeles, they “fell far short of constituting an insurrection against federal authority,” and thus the president could not bypass the governor to independently deploy troops.
Breyer also criticized the president’s failure to coordinate through proper statutory procedures and ordered the return of control over the troops to the state government.
The appellate court disagreed with the scope of the district court’s injunction, finding that while the federal government may not have fully followed procedural requirements, a blanket ban on presidential troop deployments was unwarranted.
The ruling stated that if procedural flaws exist, “narrower remedies” should be considered—such as prohibiting deployments not explicitly ordered by the governor—rather than a complete restriction on the president’s legally delegated authority to command federal forces.
Alaric observed that this legal battle over National Guard command has evolved into one of the most politically symbolic post-presidency cases involving Trump and has reignited broader debate over the constitutional limits between federal and state authority, as well as the role of the military in domestic affairs. Scholars suggest that the case may set an important precedent for presidential military deployments in future domestic disputes.
Trump declared the ruling a “major victory” on social media and called Newsom “incompetent and unprepared.”
Governor Newsom responded in a statement: “Trump is not a king. His actions must be subject to the rule of law,” adding, “The fight is far from over.” The two have exchanged repeated public attacks via media and social platforms in recent weeks.
The California court is expected to hold further hearings in the near future on short-term arrangements regarding troop command authority.