A federal appeals court on Thursday sided with President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles to help keep the peace following protests over immigration raids.
The decision means Trump can keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to guard federal buildings in the city for now, blocking a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he called up the soldiers against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes, the Associated Press reported.
While other governors willingly readied National Guard troops in response to planned protests, Newsom, a Democrat and Trump’s political nemesis, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for doing so without his permission.
After some emergency filings and legal back and forth, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the president’s argument that he was within his authority to control the guard.
In a late-night post on Truth Social following the ruling, Trump gloated, “BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard!”
He finished, “This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!”
The three-judge panel said presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, but Trump showed enough evidence to support his rationale for doing so, including ongoing civil unrest and attacks on federal officials.
“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. 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, as reported by NBC Bay Area News. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
According to the panel, 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 three judges on the panel were Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. During oral arguments on Tuesday in a San Francisco courtroom, all three judges hinted that they were leaning in Trump’s favor, the Associated Press reported.
The judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue.
However, all three judges rejected the administration’s claim that the courts had no role in reviewing his decision to send the military to Los Angeles. If Trump’s call-up had been “obviously absurd or made in bad faith,” they said, courts would clearly have a role in assessing it, Politico reported.
Although Trump and Newsom have long been political enemies, this current rift started after Trump called up 4,000 California National Guard troops in response to violent protests in Los Angeles, which began June 6 after a workforce immigration operation in the fashion district.
Newsom retaliated with a lawsuit, saying the move is unconstitutional and an “assault on democracy,” despite several days of out-of-control protests where protestors set police cars on fire, shot off commercial-grade fireworks, looted and graffitied businesses, closed the 101 Freeway and hurled rocks and bricks at police.
The 9th Circuit judges concluded that Trump didn’t violate a technical aspect of the law, requiring he issue his order to activate the Guard “through” Newsom.
“Where does the statute say that issuing it through the governor requires either the governor’s consent or requires consultation with the government?” Bennett asked during Tuesday’s oral arguments, per Politico.
Since Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, Los Angeles Police Department won’t support federal immigration operations. According to various reports, it took LAPD between 40 minutes and an hour to respond to the scene after protestors swarmed federal agents.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered Trump to return control of the guard to Newsom. Breyer, a Clinton-appointed judge, said Trump had deployed the Guard illegally and exceeded his authority. But the administration quickly appealed and the appeals court panel temporarily paused that order until the panel could hear arguments.
The Trump administration said that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom alleged that calling in the military escalated tensions, usurped his authority and wasted resources when guard members are needed for wildfire season.
According to Politico, the appeals court decision has indefinitely blocked Newsom’s efforts to reclaim control of the National Guard as the battle makes its way through the courts.
And some argue the outcome of the case could have sweeping implications for Trump’s power to send soldiers into other American cities. It’s the first time the president has activated a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The appeals court ruling supersedes last week’s decision by Breyer, who issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s deployment of the Guard. Thursday’s decision grants the Trump administration’s request to keep the hold in place as litigation proceeds.
Breyer was scheduled to hold another hearing in the case on Friday to consider Newsom’s request for a longer-term block of both the Guard deployment and Trump’s subsequent deployment of 700 Marines, Politico reported.
Newsom could ask a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court to take up the issue or seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Newsom responded to the ruling on X, expressing disappointment but posting: “This fight doesn’t end here.”
This fight doesn’t end here. pic.twitter.com/6OZJdLcJK0
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 20, 2025
He added: “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. 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.”
