Trump Maintains Control of National Guard in L.A.: What the Appeals Court Said About His Authority

President Donald Trump can maintain control of the California National Guard, a federal appeals court has ruled, overturning an earlier decision that found the President’s mobilization of the troops was “illegal.” 

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is temporary, but allows the President to continue directing the thousands of National Guard members he has deployed to Los Angeles to quell multi-day protests over the Administration’s immigration policy. Their deployment was subject to a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued the President violated the Tenth Amendment, which lays out the powers of state and the federal government. Seven hundred Marines have also been sent to L.A.

The unanimous opinion, delivered by a three-panel judge panel made up of two Trump appointees and another appointed by President Joe Biden, reversed a lower court decision that found Trump did not satisfy the requirements necessary for the President to call in the National Guard under the law he invoked. 

Trump celebrated the appeals court’s ruling on his social media platform, Truth Social. “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 wrote late Thursday.

Though it ruled in Trump’s favor, the court also rejected an argument from the Administration that the National Guard deployment could not be reviewed, however. 

Newsom applauded that part of the decision, and noted that litigation regarding the matter will continue. “The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,” Newsom said in a post on X. “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.” 

Here’s what the appeals court said about Trump’s power to deploy the National Guard.

Trump “likely acted within his authority”

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling found that the President likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in invoking Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. Under that statute, the President has the power to invoke the National Guard if he cannot execute laws with “regular forces,” or if an invasion or rebellion is underway or at risk. 

The Trump Administration claimed in court filings that there was “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States.”

The judges, however, said that the “protests in Los Angeles fall short of rebellion,” though they pointed to the unrest in Los Angeles and risk to federal officials and property. They called Newsom’s concerns about how the presence of the National Guard could escalate tensions between protesters and law enforcement “too speculative.”

The judges also responded to Newsom’s assertion that his lack of involvement in the deployment of the troops made Trump’s actions illegal. The court found that the Secretary of Defense’s “transmittal of the order” to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, who can issue orders in name of the Governor, satisfied the procedural requirements necessary to send in the National Guard. 

The President’s decisions to deploy the National Guard are not above review

The federal government argued that Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard was “unreviewable” by the court system because the statute the President used empowered him to mobilize it in “such numbers as he considers necessary.”

In the ruling, the judges said that they should be “highly deferential” to the President, but also denied the assertion that the federalization of the National Guard is “completely insulated from judicial review.” 

Trump’s call up of the National Guard was the first time in six decades that a President had done so without the governor’s consent.