Police officers and California National Guard were deployed at a federal building in Los Angeles where protesters gathered last week. Photo: Gabriella Angotti-Jones for WSJ

A Trump administration lawyer told a federal appeals court Tuesday that judges have no power to review the president’s decision to federalize the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objection, and asked it to throw out an order requiring Trump to return command of those troops to the governor.

The district court’s order “upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the president’s military orders,” Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate told the three-judge panel during the hearing. Conditions in Los Angeles, where protests against Trump’s aggressive deportation policy have at times turned violent, amount to “rebellion against the authority of the United States,” he said.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday granted California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s seizure of the California National Guard and deployment of troops in Los Angeles, calling the federal action illegal and unconstitutional.

The ruling temporarily returned control of the Guard to the state and delivered a legal and symbolic blow to the Trump administration’s latest domestic military escalation.

But hours later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a stay, allowing the Trump administration to maintain control of the California National Guard for now.

The decision temporarily blocks the lower court’s order requiring the federal government to return control of the troops to California, marking the next step in a high-stakes legal battle over executive authority and state sovereignty.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer had found that Trump’s order to federalize 2,000 California National Guard members—without the governor’s consent—violated Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus (Latin for the power of the county) Act, which bars the use of the military in domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization.

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not,” Breyer wrote in the 36-page order. “His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

The ruling came amid widespread public unrest and federal immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles. On June 6, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executed coordinated raids at various locations across the city, including the Garment District, targeting undocumented immigrants. More than 70 people were detained. The raids, which local officials say were carried out without notice or coordination with local law enforcement, triggered mass protests across downtown Los Angeles and surrounding neighborhoods.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and County Supervisor Janice Hahn were among several leaders who criticized the federal operations, warning that the raids created chaos and fear. Demonstrations quickly escalated, with thousands taking to the streets. While most remained peaceful, isolated incidents of vandalism and clashes with law enforcement were reported, including fireworks thrown at officers, property damage and minor injuries. Law enforcement, however, maintained control, and both LAPD and the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department reported no need for federal reinforcements.

Despite this, Trump issued a memorandum on June 7 ordering the National Guard into federal service under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The memo, which did not name California specifically, claimed protests were interfering with the execution of federal law and constituted “a form of rebellion.” The order, which also authorized the Department of Defense to deploy active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, bypassed the governor and was implemented immediately.

Judge Breyer rejected the administration’s legal justification for the federalization, writing that the facts did not meet the statutory conditions for such a move.

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. “While some individuals used the protests as an excuse for violence and destruction, Defendants have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”

The court found that protesters were clearly motivated by opposition to the ICE raids and not by any desire to overthrow the federal government.

Breyer also emphasized that federal law requires National Guard deployments under Title 10 to occur with the consent of the governor, a step the administration skipped entirely.

“The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles—not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,” Newsom said in a public statement following the deployment.

In its legal filings, the state argued that the deployment had inflamed tensions and endangered public safety. According to court declarations, the presence of military personnel escalated unrest rather than containing it. On June 8, the day troops arrived, the number of protesters surged to over 3,500, and additional confrontations occurred outside the Metropolitan Detention Center. Officials noted that the National Guard units were neither properly trained nor authorized to conduct civilian law enforcement activities, which are explicitly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-filed the lawsuit, called the decision a victory for democracy.

“We will not stand idly by as the President attempts to intimidate and silence those who disagree with him,” Bonta said. “This order reaffirms that in this country, we do not use the military to police peaceful dissent.”

The lawsuit has drawn national attention. Twenty-one state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of California, warning that Trump’s actions set a “chilling precedent” that threatens state sovereignty and democratic norms. The brief stated that the President’s actions lacked legal justification and “are wholly inconsistent with our Nation’s founding principle that freedom depends on the subordination of the military to civilian authority.”

Retired military leaders, including former secretaries of the Army and Navy and retired four-star generals and admirals, also weighed in. In a separate filing, they warned that the deployment of federal troops in politically charged circumstances without clear legal authorization jeopardizes both the legitimacy of the military and the public’s trust. “The active-duty military and National Guard serve a critical role in U.S. national security,” the brief stated. “Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to exacting legal requirements threaten their core national security and disaster relief missions, put the military at risk of politicization, and pose serious risks to both servicemembers and civilians.”

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., welcomed the court’s decision and condemned the President’s attempt to override state authority. “President Trump tried to commandeer the California National Guard to manufacture a crisis and abuse his power,” Padilla said. “He put the safety of our Guard and our local law enforcement at risk to create a spectacle and intimidate peaceful protesters. Tonight’s ruling is a victory for the people of California and for the rule of law.”

The court’s decision also scrutinized the President’s invocation of the phrase “danger of a rebellion,” noting that this language was not part of the original order and that no factual record supports such a claim. “Defendants have not established a factual basis from which this Court can conclude that there is a danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States,” Breyer wrote.

Although the ruling applies only to California for now, its implications could be national. The June 7 memo suggested a broader assertion of power, referring to deployments “at locations where protests … are likely to occur,” raising the possibility of similar actions in other states. Legal observers say the ruling reasserts longstanding constitutional limits on federal power and upholds the principle of civilian control over the military.

The Department of Justice has not yet said whether it will appeal the District Court ruling, but Trump administration officials indicated they are reviewing their legal options. In the meantime, questions remain about the status of more than 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines stationed in the Los Angeles area. The legal status of those deployments will remain in flux until further rulings are issued.

Categories:

Tags:

Topline An appellate court temporarily blocked a federal judge’s order directing President Donald Trump to return control of California’s National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles to Governor Gavin Newsom, after Trump’s controversial deployment of active duty military personnel to quell protests against his immigration crackdown this week. Getty Images

Key Facts

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in a filing Thursday Trump must “return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the ruling late Thursday after an appeal by the Trump administration. Breyer said Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, which was done without Newsom’s approval, was illegal, “exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Newsom called Breyer’s ruling a win for the U.S., saying it is “a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day,” and demanded Trump comply with Breyer’s order. Breyer’s order was set to go into effect at 3 p.m. EDT on Friday, but the appellate court’s decision means troops in Los Angeles will remain under the president’s control. Breyer’s now-paused order, however, only applies to California National Guard forces and not the U.S. Marines, who were also sent to Los Angeles by the Trump administration.

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.

What Else Did Judge Breyer Say In His Ruling?

Earlier on Thursday, Breyer said it did not appear Trump issued his National Guard order through Newsom, which is a requirement when the president seeks to deploy the troops in a given state. Breyer also scrutinized Trump’s justification that the protests posed a danger of rebellion, after Trump deployed troops through a law that gives the president the power to do so in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.” The judge disagreed with Trump’s defense that a claim of potential rebellion is not reviewable by courts, according to Politico, adding, “That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George. It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.”

What Has Trump Said About The Ruling?

Trump cheered the ruling in an early morning Truth Social post, but appeared to wrongly suggest the temporary pause was a ruling backing his bid to “use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe.” The president then claimed if he hadn’t sent in the troop to Los Angeles “that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A.” On Thursday night, the president continued to attack Newsom on Truth Social, saying: “Incompetent Gavin Newscum should have been THANKING me for the job we did in Los Angeles, rather than making sad excuses for the poor job he has done.” In a separate post, Trump claimed without evidence that the Biden Administration and Newsom had “flooded America with 21 Million Illegal Aliens,” despite various estimates suggesting the number of undocumented migrants in the country is between 11 and 12 million. In the post, Trump hailed ICE officers as “HEROES” and claimed they were “daily being subjected to doxxing and murder threats.”

Key Background

Immigration protests in Los Angeles began last week in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids conducted at retail spaces, graduations and courthouses in the city, as well as Trump’s larger immigration policies. The same night protests began, the Trump administration began weighing the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles. Protests continued into the week and federal troops were deployed, eventually reaching a point National Guard troops were briefly detaining protesters before handing them off to local law enforcement for arrest. Newsom has sharply blasted the use of the National Guard, accusing Trump of “putting fuel on the fire” and taking the president to court over the decision. The governor has claimed his authority was infringed upon with the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, though the latter force has yet to participate in operations within Los Angeles.

Further Reading

Los Angeles Protests: National Guard Has Detained Some Protesters (Forbes)

Sen. Alex Padilla Forcibly Removed From Kristi Noem’s Press Conference In Los Angeles (Forbes)

Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, a felony, before he took office [Getty Images]

Attorneys for Donald Trump argued on Wednesday that the appeal over his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the change.

Trump was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed.

Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump’s legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity grounds.

Both sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump’s attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president’s appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump’s official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks.

“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Mr Wall told the three-judge panel.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, meanwhile, argued Trump’s legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing.

“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. “Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it.”

Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump’s attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office.

The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker’s official duties.

Trump’s crime, Mr Wu argued, “was completed before the White House evidence”.

During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was “extraordinary” and “highly unusual”.

One judge told Mr Wall it would be “quite anomalous” for an appeal to be moved to federal court.

But another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used “broad” language to describe which evidence related to “official acts” as president.

The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date.

Trump’s attorneys argued last September for his New York case to be moved to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision.

Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case 10 days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record.

Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency.

Trump’s defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the Justice Department.