A federal appeals court on Thursday delivered a significant victory for President Donald Trump, indefinitely blocking a lower court’s order that would have required him to relinquish control of California’s National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily halts a ruling issued just hours earlier by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who claimed Trump’s federalization of the Guard violated the Tenth Amendment and federal law. Breyer’s order, which stated the protests in Los Angeles did not meet the legal definition of a “rebellion” under Title 10, would have returned command of the troops to Newsom by Friday afternoon.
The appeals court’s swift action allows Trump to maintain operational control of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines deployed earlier this month in response to escalating protests tied to immigration enforcement actions. The deployment aims to safeguard federal buildings, personnel, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents amid growing unrest.
In a statement on Truth Social, President Trump hailed the ruling as a “great decision” for the country and a strong affirmation of his constitutional authority.
Newsom, a Democrat, had aggressively challenged the deployment, accusing Trump of authoritarianism and overreach. “The President is not a king,” he said during a press conference before the appeals court issued its stay. “This is a test of democracy—and we will keep fighting.”
Newsom, a Democrat, had challenged Trump’s authority, arguing that Trump deployed the National Guard without his consent and inflamed tensions in the city. California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed the sentiment, claiming the deployment diverted critical resources from wildfire preparedness and border security.
But Trump’s legal team, led by Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, countered that the President’s actions were entirely within his constitutional powers, emphasizing that state governors have no veto power over the President’s military authority.
“It puts Article III judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,” Shumate said.
The appellate court’s three-judge panel, including two Trump appointees, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and one Biden appointee, Jennifer Sung, signaled skepticism toward California’s arguments. They pointed to historical precedents, such as a 1827 Supreme Court ruling, that grant presidents broad discretion in deploying military forces to address civil unrest. Shumate argued that Trump’s invocation of Title 10, which allows federalization of the Guard in cases of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion,” was justified, given reports of violence and property damage in Los Angeles.
California argued that, regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute’s mandate to issue his order “through” the state’s governor. California Newsom’s consent was required.
“It’s a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,” said Judge Miller.
Before adjourning, the panel noted Judge Breyer, the brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, is moving quickly to a Friday hearing to determine whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal.
The decision marks a crucial win for Trump, whose administration has prioritized robust immigration enforcement. While Newsom and local officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, insist state and local law enforcement can handle the protests, Trump’s supporters praise his decisive action to restore order. The presence of National Guard troops, they argue, sends a clear message to other cities contemplating resistance to federal immigration policies.
The legal battle is far from over. The appeals court will revisit the case next week, and either side could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, Trump retains control of the Guard, bolstering his ability to protect federal interests in Los Angeles.
