An appeals court has issued a temporary ruling that halts a federal judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to return authority over California’s National Guard troops to the state. This decision came shortly after a federal judge deemed the deployment of these troops to Los Angeles—intended to suppress immigration enforcement protests—unlawful.
President Trump justified the deployment, stating that the troops, who typically operate under the authority of the governor, were needed to prevent Los Angeles from “burning down” due to escalating protests against his immigration policies. However, California Governor Gavin Newsom and other local officials criticized this move as an unwarranted escalation. The appeals court has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to further address the matter.
Legal Battle Over National Guard Deployment
During a prior court session, Judge Charles Breyer raised the issue of whether the President acted in accordance with congressional laws regarding the deployment of a state’s National Guard. He concluded, “He did not,” asserting that the President’s actions were illegal, and directed that control of the California National Guard be returned to the governor immediately.
Despite this ruling, the judge temporarily suspended his order until Friday afternoon, granting the Trump administration time to appeal. The administration acted swiftly, filing an appeal nearly immediately after the decision was announced.
“The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets,”
Newsom declared via social media on Thursday afternoon. The Trump administration argued that it took control of the National Guard to restore order and to safeguard Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during their operations in Los Angeles, targeting individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.
Historical Context and Constitutional Concerns
Trump ordered a deployment of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines, with some troops authorized to detain individuals until law enforcement can take over. Historically, it has been over 50 years since a president unilaterally deployed the National Guard without the consent of a governor, an action typically reserved for responses to natural disasters and emergencies, where governors seek federal assistance.
In the courtroom, a justice department attorney asserted that Governor Newsom’s consultation was not necessary for Trump’s order. “Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it,” attorney Brett Shumate stated. Judge Breyer countered, affirming that “the president isn’t the commander-in-chief of the National Guard,” while acknowledging there are circumstances where the president could assume that role.
Breyer, who was noted for wearing a light blue bowtie during the proceedings, referenced the Constitution multiple times, emphasizing the limitations of presidential authority. “We’re talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority,” he remarked, drawing a distinction between constitutional governance and monarchical power.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, prior to the judge’s ruling, consistently evaded questions regarding compliance with Breyer’s order, stating, “What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country.” Hegseth affirmed he would adhere to any Supreme Court ruling.
The appeals court’s decision allows the National Guard troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case continues through the judicial system. The Trump administration invoked a law enabling presidential control of the National Guard during periods of “rebellion.” However, California’s lawsuit contends that the protests in LA—characterized by over 300 arrests and significant disruptions—do not constitute a rebellion.
“At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection,” California’s lawsuit asserts, highlighting that the current protests have not escalated to levels seen in previous years in major cities.
Additional reporting by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC.