A federal appellate court has sided with President Donald Trump in a legal dispute over his deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during protests over immigration enforcement.
According to the BBC, the ruling upholds Trump's decision to mobilize the National Guard in California despite opposition from state officials and reverses a lower court’s determination that the deployment was unlawful.
The decision, issued Thursday by a three-judge panel, confirmed that Trump acted within his legal powers when he dispatched guard members to safeguard federal personnel and property amid the unrest. The protests had erupted in response to an intensified immigration crackdown by his administration.
California Governor Gavin Newsom had strongly objected to the troop deployment, calling the move an unwarranted show of military force. Local leaders criticized the decision as provocation rather than protection, raising concerns about the federal use of state military assets without collaboration.
Appeals Court Cites President's Legal Rights
The appellate panel unanimously disagreed with a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had determined that President Trump violated federal law by bypassing the state governor's authority in the mobilization of California’s National Guard troops. In that earlier ruling, Judge Breyer concluded Trump did not comply with provisions set by Congress, which outline how National Guard forces are to be federalized. He said the president must coordinate such action through the state's governor and ordered that control of the California National Guard be returned “forthwith” to Governor Newsom.
However, before that order could be implemented, it was temporarily halted to allow the Trump administration to appeal. The administration filed that challenge almost immediately following the judge’s decision.
Judges Push Back On Absolute Presidential Power
In its 38-page opinion, the appeals panel said the president’s failure to follow the federalization process through the state’s executive branch did not undercut his overall authority to activate Guard units. The court held that Trump’s actions fell within the legal framework allowed for the protection of federal assets and interests. Yet the judges also clarified they did not accept Trump’s broader argument that his actions were completely immune from court evaluation. They made clear that while the mobilization itself was legal, it remained subject to judicial scrutiny.
Approximately 4,000 National Guard personnel remain stationed in the Los Angeles area following the ruling, maintaining a presence that began during mass demonstrations against controversial immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Tensions High as Political Leaders Respond
Trump justified the deployment by pointing to threats posed to federal agencies and cited rising disorder during efforts to detain individuals suspected of being in the country without legal documentation. He said state and local law enforcement were, at times, unable to maintain public safety.
“This is much bigger than Gavin,” Trump wrote on social media, referencing California’s governor. “If our cities and our people need protection, we are the ones to give it to them, should State and Local Police be unable... to get the job done.” Trump further praised the Guard’s involvement, declaring, “America is proud of you tonight!” amid the ongoing deployment of thousands of troops in the heavily populated Los Angeles region.
Presidential Action Without State Consent
California’s governor, however, remained defiant in his opposition, warning on X that unchecked executive authority posed a threat to constitutional order. “Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” Newsom posted, adding that the court “rightly rejected” the idea that a president could deploy troops without oversight.
The former president’s decision also included an order for 700 U.S. Marines to enter Los Angeles to support operations, despite open objection from state leadership. The additional presence of active-duty military in a domestic conflict setting reignited longstanding debates over the federal government’s wartime powers during peacetime protests. This is the first known instance since the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s that a U.S. president placed National Guard units in a state without that state's approval, under circumstances outside of a natural disaster or major emergency.
Legal Precedent May Have Broader Impact
Legal analysts say the ruling could have significant implications for federal-state relations concerning military command during civil unrest. By affirming the president’s discretion under existing law, the court may have opened the door for broader future conflicts over executive control of state troops.
The court's conclusions are likely to be used as precedent in related cases if a similar scenario were to unfold in another state, especially during national emergencies or periods of political strife. For now, control of the California National Guard remains with federal authorities under Trump’s directive, with further legal efforts by California officials not yet announced publicly.
