Federal Appeals Court to Decide Trump’s Authority Over California National Guard

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court will hear arguments to determine whether President Trump can retain control over California’s National Guard forces in Los Angeles, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom.

The hearing, conducted by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arrives amid ongoing protests against immigration raids, even as activity in downtown Los Angeles has diminished since the weekend.

Last week, a district court judge ruled that the president’s deployment of the National Guard was unlawful and ordered that control be returned to Governor Newsom.

The Trump administration swiftly appealed the decision, prompting the appellate court to stay the lower court’s ruling while the case is reviewed. The panel includes two judges appointed by President Trump and one appointed by former President Biden.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court may be called upon to determine whether a president can bypass state governors to deploy the National Guard under the statute invoked by President Trump. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the use of military forces within the United States.

The controversy began after Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted workplace raids in Los Angeles as part of the administration’s intensified immigration enforcement. Critics, including Democratic leaders and activists, condemned ICE for sweeping raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, accusing the agency of targeting individuals without serious criminal records.

In response, the president invoked a rarely used federal statute to assert control over the National Guard, citing the need to protect immigration agents and facilities amid protests. Governor Newsom opposed this action, calling it unnecessarily provocative and arguing that state and local law enforcement were capable of managing the demonstrations. Although some protesters engaged in vandalism and violence, the majority remained peaceful.

By Monday, downtown Los Angeles had largely returned to a state of normal activity, two days after tens of thousands gathered for the “No Kings” rally opposing the immigration crackdown. Signs of the week’s unrest remained visible, including anti-ICE graffiti and scattered protest signage.

Many businesses in Little Tokyo, which suffered significant vandalism the previous week, remained shuttered with boarded-up storefronts. Nevertheless, groups of Japanese tourists wearing Shohei Ohtani baseball jerseys were seen taking photos beneath a large mural of the Dodgers pitcher, who made his debut that evening.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced a relaxation of the downtown curfew, pushing its start from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., while maintaining the 6 a.m. end time.

Mayor Bass stated that the curfew, combined with ongoing crime prevention efforts, had been effective in safeguarding local businesses and residential areas from disruptive individuals who do not represent the immigrant community.

The city appeared to be stabilizing, with police presence near City Hall significantly reduced and many locations previously guarded by federal troops now unmonitored.

One notable exception was the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ambulatory care center east of City Hall, where a dozen Marines remained stationed in full combat gear, rifles at the ready. Last week, National Guard troops guarding this site had drawn hundreds of protesters; by Monday, only a handful remained. Nearby, a woman in traditional Aztec attire burned incense and performed ritual calls as acts of protest.

This federal deployment marks the first time since 1963 that the federal government has asserted control over a state’s National Guard against the governor’s clear opposition. That year, President John F. Kennedy federalized Alabama’s National Guard to enforce desegregation at the University of Alabama, defying Governor George Wallace’s resistance.

While President Lyndon B. Johnson also federalized Alabama’s National Guard in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers without a formal gubernatorial request, Governor Wallace did not oppose that action.

However, President Kennedy’s intervention relied on the Insurrection Act. In contrast, President Trump cited a different statute, which permits federal control over a state’s National Guard under specific conditions but requires orders to be issued through the governor.

Following President Trump’s directive, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order transferring command of California’s National Guard to the state’s general, bypassing Governor Newsom. Federal District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last week that this maneuver was illegal, citing the procedural violation. The administration contended that the general, who commands the Guard on the governor’s behalf, fulfilled the legal requirement.

Additionally, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth activated approximately 700 active-duty Marines to assist with immigration enforcement protection. The state requested that a judge restrict the Marines’ role to securing federal buildings and prohibit them from accompanying ICE agents during raids, invoking a 19th-century law that generally prohibits military involvement in law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act applies.

At the time of the hearing, the Marines had not yet been deployed within the city, leading Judge Breyer to deem it premature to issue restrictions. Since then, Marines have been deployed and were recorded detaining a man attempting to access a federal building; he was merely running an errand at the Veterans Affairs office.

City officials argued that deploying armed military personnel trained for combat on domestic soil has heightened fear and tension in Los Angeles. In a supporting brief, they urged the court to uphold the restraining order protecting Governor Newsom’s authority.

Officials from numerous other cities across the country joined the brief, emphasizing that local police forces have established protocols for managing civil unrest and warning that uncoordinated military involvement increases risks to both officers and civilians.