President Trump is directing ICE agents to focus their deportations in Democratic-run cities. In *** lengthy social media post, he called on officials to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history, telling them to expand efforts in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, where protests recently erupted because of. raids at the same time, Trump has directed *** pause on arrest at farms, restaurants and hotels, alarmed that they could have an impact on those industries. Democrats and leaders in several of these cities say this move is part of *** politically motivated strategy, although the Trump administration argues it refocuses resources more efficiently as it tries to ramp up arrests to 3000 *** day in Washington, I’m Amy Lou.

Advertisement Appeals court lets President Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to LA during protests Editorial Standards ⓘ

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.Related video above: Trump directs ICE agents to focus deportations in Democratic citiesThe 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.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 president’s order.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.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 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 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.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil. PHOTO: REUTERS

US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now

WASHINGTON – A US appeals court let President Donald Trump retain control on J une 19 of California’s National Guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican President’s use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles.

Mr Trump’s decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country’s second most-populous city.

On J une 19 , a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer’s June 12 ruling that Mr Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service.

Mr Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with California Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Mr Trump’s directive.

“And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalise the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalised National Guard may engage,” it wrote in its opinion.

Mr Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added.

The Governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Ju ne 20 in front of Judge Breyer, it said.

In a post on X after the decision, Mr Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge.

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” he said. “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens.”

Mr Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social.

“This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans,” he said.

“This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.”

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

The judge ruled that Mr Trump violated a US law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor.

It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.

Judge Breyer ordered Mr Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Mr Newsom.

Hours after Judge Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge’s move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Mr Trump’s immigration raids, the US President on June 7 took control of California’s National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Mr Newsom’s wishes.

Mr Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation.

At a court hearing on June 17 on whether to extend the pause on Judge Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Mr Trump’s authority to deploy the troops.

The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at the immigration authorities’ vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalised property, frustrating law enforcement.

The US Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument.

The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.

In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Mr Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

The 9th Circuit panel is composed of two judges appointed by Mr Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former US president Joe Biden. REUTERS

Join ST’s Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

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.

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 US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalising control of the guard.

Also read

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 federalising 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.

Also read

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 prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

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.

Also read

The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump’s command, and he won an early victory from US 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.

More Like This

Published on June 20, 2025

Thousands of protesters gather at City Hall to protest the policies of the Trump administration in the nationwide “No Kings Day of Defiance” demonstrations in Los Angeles on Saturday, June 14, 2025. Late Thursday, an appeals court ruled President Donald Trump may maintain control of National Guardsmen he deployed to the streets of Los Angeles. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

June 20 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday that President Donald Trump may maintain control of thousands of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, a blow to the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is fighting to keep the soldiers off his streets.

The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, ruling that Trump’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was likely legal.

The court though disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president’s decision to federalize the troops was insulated from judicial review but acknowledged that they must be “highly deferential” to it.

“Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the court said in its 38-page ruling, though it added “nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.”

The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and President Joe Biden appointee Jennifer Sung.

The ruling stays a lower court’s order that had directed the Trump administration to remove the troops deployed to Los Angeles streets.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a “BIG WIN” on his Truth Social media platform.

“The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States ,if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable , for whatever reason to get the job done,” Trump said in the post, referring to the California governor by an insulting moniker he invented.

Trump — who campaigned on mass deportations while using incendiary and derogatory rhetoric as well as misinformation about immigrants — has been leading a crackdown on immigration since returning to the White House.

On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began conducting raids in Los Angeles, prompting mass protests in the city.

In response, Trump deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles to quell the demonstrations and to protect ICE agents performing immigration arrests. The number of troops deployed has since increased to 4,000, despite protests having abated.

The deployment was met with staunch opposition, criticism of Trump for continuing an extreme right-wing slide into authoritarianism and a lawsuit from Newsom, who was initially awarded a stay ordering the troops to be removed from the Los Angeles streets.

However, an appeals court hours later issued a preliminary injunction, which late Thursday was made a stay.

Newsom, in a statement, expressed disappointment over the ruling while highlighting the court’s rejection of Trump’s argument that his decision to deploy the troops is beyond judicial review.

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” Newsom said, vowing to continue to fight the deployment in court.

“We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

The deployment by Trump is the first by a president without a governor’s permission since 1965.

A federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for President Trump to keep using the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles, declaring that a judge in San Francisco erred last week when he ordered Mr. Trump to return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California.

In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the conditions in Los Angeles were sufficient for Mr. Trump to decide that he needed to take federal control of California’s National Guard and deploy it to ensure that federal immigration laws would be enforced.

A lower-court judge had concluded that the protests were not severe enough for Mr. Trump to use a rarely-triggered law to federalize the National Guard over Mr. Newsom’s objections. But the panel, which included two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., disagreed with the lower court.