A federal appeals court has temporarily permitted the Trump administration to maintain its deployment of National Guard troops in California despite a legal challenge from state officials. The ruling marks a significant reversal from an earlier court decision.
According to NBC News, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Thursday night allowing President Trump to keep control of approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops pending further litigation. The decision temporarily overturned a lower court order that had determined the president's federalization of the guardsmen was unlawful.
The three-judge panel scheduled a hearing on the matter for Tuesday, extending the legal battle between California state leaders and the Trump administration over military deployment in Los Angeles. The dispute centers on whether proper protocols were followed when federalizing state troops.
Conflicting court decisions heighten tensions
Hours before the appeals court intervened, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had temporarily halted the deployment in Los Angeles. His ruling delivered a significant, though brief, setback to the president's plans.
Breyer's temporary restraining order came after an hourlong hearing in San Francisco federal court. The judge determined that the federal government lacked proper authority to nationalize California's National Guard, writing that Trump's actions were "illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment."
The ruling specifically addressed California Governor Gavin Newsom's argument that the Trump administration failed to properly notify his office before taking command of the troops, a requirement under federal law. This procedural failure became the core of the state's legal challenge.
State and federal clash intensifies
California officials have strongly opposed the military presence in Los Angeles, arguing it would only escalate tensions during ongoing protests triggered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
Governor Newsom, a Democrat, celebrated Judge Breyer's initial ruling before it was paused, calling it "a big day for the Constitution" and expressing hope it would mark "the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach." His comments reflected the state's frustration with what it considers federal overstepping.
The California Attorney General's office had filed the legal challenge after Newsom sent a letter urging the administration to relinquish control of the troops. The governor specifically noted that the Department of Defense had not transmitted the directive to his office or received his approval as required by law.
Constitutional powers debate
Justice Department attorneys framed Judge Breyer's initial ruling as an unprecedented attack on presidential authority, setting up a fundamental constitutional debate about executive power.
In their appeal, federal government lawyers argued that the district court order represented "an extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to call forth the National Guard as necessary to protect federal officials from ongoing violent protests and attacks."
The administration's position holds that the president's military judgments shouldn't be subject to "second-guessing" by governors or federal courts. They cited Supreme Court precedent from nearly 200 years ago, establishing that such decisions belong exclusively to the Commander in Chief.
Ongoing legal battle ahead
The appeals court decision ensures that National Guard troops will remain under federal control in Los Angeles at least until Tuesday's hearing when arguments from both sides will be heard in greater detail.
Judge Breyer's original order did not apply to the approximately 700 Marines also deployed to Los Angeles, as he acknowledged limitations to his authority over Marine Corps movements. This distinction highlights the complex jurisdictional questions at play in the dispute.
The legal confrontation represents a significant test of federal versus state authority during periods of civil unrest. With protests continuing in Los Angeles in response to immigration enforcement actions, the ultimate resolution of this case could establish important precedents for future deployments of military personnel in domestic settings.
