Washington: In a significant development in the ongoing legal clash between federal and state authority, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed former President Donald Trump to temporarily retain control over the California National Guard, halting a lower court ruling that would have restored command to Governor Gavin Newsom.
The three judge panel’s decision, issued on June 20, came after intense legal debate over Trump’s June 7 federalization order, which placed roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops under federal command and deployed 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. The deployment followed violent unrest during protests sparked by a wave of immigration enforcement actions across the state. Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it unilateral and unlawful, arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty.
On June 12, District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of Newsom, declaring that Trump’s federalization lacked constitutional basis. The judge said the conditions cited by the Trump administration rebellion or invasion did not apply, and that the president failed to consult with California’s executive branch before seizing control of its Guard. Breyer’s ruling would have required an immediate return of command to the state.
However, the Ninth Circuit panel’s stay of that order now allows Trump to maintain command over the National Guard during ongoing legal proceedings. The judges stated that the president appears to have acted within the bounds of his authority to deploy federal forces when federal law enforcement alone is insufficient to safeguard federal interests or properties.
The panel, which included two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, also highlighted the limited role of courts in reviewing national security decisions made by the executive, particularly in urgent situations. While acknowledging the seriousness of the state's concerns, they argued that judicial oversight should not hinder the president’s constitutional duty to maintain public order and national security.
The case Newsom v. Trump is poised to become a landmark in defining the limits of presidential power in domestic military deployments. Governor Newsom has vowed to continue his legal battle, possibly appealing to a broader Ninth Circuit bench or taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal analysts note that the conflict touches on several constitutional doctrines, including the Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act, and the balance of federalism. If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s stay could give future presidents expanded leeway to override governors in deploying National Guard troops on American soil during times of civil unrest.
Reactions have been sharply divided. Supporters of Trump’s move argue that the Guard’s federalization was a necessary step to control chaos in Los Angeles and protect vital infrastructure. Critics, including several civil liberties organizations and state officials, argue it sets a dangerous precedent and erodes local authority in favor of a centralized militarized response to civil demonstrations.
Meanwhile, tensions remain high in California, where the sight of federal troops in the streets has revived memories of past conflicts over federal intervention. Though no further clashes have occurred, the political standoff between Washington and Sacramento remains unresolved.
As legal proceedings unfold, the case is being closely watched for its potential to reshape the power dynamics between state and federal governments, especially in times of social unrest and national emergency.