On June 20, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pivotal decision temporarily allowing former President Donald Trump to retain federal control over California’s National Guard, deferring a lower court’s order that would have returned command to Governor Gavin Newsom. The ruling marks a new phase in the intensifying legal and political standoff between the state of California and the federal government over military authority and immigration enforcement.
In a brief but impactful opinion, the appellate panel stated that Trump had “likely acted within statutory authority” when he federalized approximately 4,000 members of California’s National Guard earlier this month. The court cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which grants the president power to activate state forces for national emergencies or public unrest, provided certain procedural requirements are met. Although Trump did not secure Governor Newsom’s approval for the deployment, the court found that he had complied with formal notification procedures outlined by law.
Notably, the panel refrained from ruling on how those troops may be used, leaving unresolved questions about the legality of their deployment tactics. Civil rights groups and state officials have expressed concern that some National Guard units may be assisting in immigration-related enforcement in ways that could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of federal military forces in civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress.
Governor Newsom responded swiftly to the ruling, denouncing the court’s stay and reaffirming his commitment to challenging the federal takeover. “The president is not a king,” Newsom wrote on social media. “This ruling undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states.” He added that California would continue to pursue its legal case, which is now expected to move toward a more extensive hearing on the scope and legality of the federal deployment.
The original dispute began in early June when Trump, citing concerns over public disorder and alleged interference with federal immigration operations, activated National Guard units to assist federal authorities in Los Angeles. The move came amid escalating federal raids in immigrant communities, prompting widespread protests, legal challenges, and public backlash. Newsom sued the administration shortly thereafter, arguing that the deployment violated state sovereignty and lacked a lawful basis.
On June 12, a U.S. district judge had sided with Newsom, ordering that command be returned to the state pending further review. But that ruling was stayed by the appellate court just eight days later, effectively allowing Trump to maintain control at least until a full hearing can be conducted.
Legal experts are closely watching the case, which could set significant precedent regarding presidential authority over state military forces. While federal law does provide mechanisms for the president to federalize the National Guard, the scope and conditions of such powers remain subject to judicial interpretation, especially when deployments involve domestic actions in politically contentious settings.
The broader implications also resonate with long-standing debates over federalism and the autonomy of states to resist or cooperate with federal law enforcement mandates. California, as a self-declared sanctuary state, has been at the forefront of resisting federal immigration policies, particularly during the Trump administration. This current legal battle represents a continuation of that larger struggle.
For now, the troops remain under federal command, stationed across various parts of Los Angeles County, including near transportation hubs and public venues. Reports have not confirmed whether they have engaged in any direct enforcement activity, but civil liberties groups have warned that even a passive military presence can have a chilling effect on community trust and democratic engagement.
As the legal case proceeds, attention will turn to an upcoming federal hearing where California is expected to push for a permanent injunction barring further unilateral federal deployment of its National Guard without gubernatorial consent. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of federal-state military authority and influence how future administrations handle public unrest and immigration enforcement.
