National Guard troops at a training center in Los Alamitos, Calif., on Thursday. Photo: david swanson/Reuters

A federal appeals court on Thursday night allowed President Trump to maintain command of the California National Guard in response to the Los Angeles protests, blocking a lower court that ordered him to return those forces to the state’s control.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Trump’s decision to federalize the Guard was entitled to a high degree of deference. And under that standard, “We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the panel wrote.

WASHINGTON: A US appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday (Jun 19) retain control over California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended a pause it placed on US District Judge Charles Breyer’s Jun 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.

Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Breyer ruled that Trump violated the US law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

An appeals court on Thursday (June 19, 2025) allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.

The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Mr. Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The deployment was the first by a President of a state National Guard without the Governor’s permission since 1965.

In its decision, the court concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in federalizing control of the guard.

It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the [resident’s order.

The court case could have wider implications on the president’s power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Mr. Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

Mr. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down.

The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday (June 17, 2025), all three judges suggested that Presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in.

The case started when Mr. Newsom sued to block Mr. Trump’s command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

Mr. Breyer found that Mr. Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” wrote Mr. Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can’t second guess the President’s decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.

The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.

An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.

The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Watch NBC Bay Area News free wherever you are WATCH HERE WATCH HERE

The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965.

In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.

It said that while presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters.

“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows,” the court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”

It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order.

The California governor’s office and the White House didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

The court case could have wider implications on the president’s power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news with the Housing Deconstructed newsletter. SIGN UP SIGN UP

Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down.

Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in.

The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump’s command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can’t second guess the president’s decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.

The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.