The legal tug-of-war between the federal and state governments took a dramatic turn as a U.S. appeals court handed Donald Trump a temporary win, allowing him to retain control of California’s National Guard amid a storm of political backlash and courtroom wrangling.
At the center of this legal storm: 4,000 National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles earlier this month—ordered by Trump despite fierce objections from Governor Gavin Newsom. The move, framed by Trump as a necessary measure to quell unrest following immigration raids, sparked protests across the city and reignited national debate over the militarization of domestic affairs.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has now paused a lower court ruling that declared Trump’s deployment unlawful. The panel hinted that Trump probably stayed within his presidential powers and may have met the legal threshold to federalize the National Guard. Even if he didn’t sync up properly with Newsom, the judges noted, the governor doesn’t hold a veto over such decisions.
That said, the court wasn’t handing Trump a blank check. It specifically avoided weighing in on what those federalized troops are actually allowed to do—especially in the tricky legal terrain of domestic law enforcement. Newsom, who has argued that Trump’s actions trample on state sovereignty, is still expected to press his case under other legal statutes, possibly challenging the role of both the Guard and the 700 U.S. Marines also sent to the streets of Los Angeles.
In a sharply worded post on X, Newsom said: “The president is not a king and is not above the law… We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against our citizens.”
Trump, not one to pass on a victory lap, took to Truth Social to declare: “This is much bigger than Gavin… If our cities and our people need protection, we are the ones to give it to them.”
Back in the courtroom, the debate boiled down to whether Trump’s use of force satisfied any of the three conditions that allow federalization of state National Guards: an invasion, a rebellion, or a situation in which normal federal operations are obstructed. The court seemed persuaded that the third condition—interference with the execution of federal law—had been met, citing reports of protestors throwing Molotov cocktails, smashing property, and attacking federal agents’ vehicles.
Still, the appeals court didn’t buy the Justice Department’s broader claim that once a president declares an emergency, no one—not a governor, not even a judge—can challenge it. The court drew a clear line: presidents may be powerful, but they’re not above judicial review.
And so the standoff continues. As curfews are lifted in Los Angeles and the protests cool, the legal fires are just getting started. The next round plays out in federal court this week—where the fate of not just California’s troops, but the boundaries of presidential power, may be redrawn.
