{"id":17187,"date":"2025-06-19T21:33:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-20T04:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/?p=17187"},"modified":"2025-06-19T21:33:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T04:33:00","slug":"trump-can-keep-control-of-california-national-guard-troops","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citystuff.com\/los-angeles\/trump-can-keep-control-of-california-national-guard-troops\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Can Keep Control of California National Guard Troops"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction to the Appeals Court Ruling<\/h2>\n

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.
\n
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n

Background of the Deployment<\/h2>\n

The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor\u2019s permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.<\/p>\n

Rationale Behind the Decision<\/h2>\n

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. \u201cThe undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters \u2018pinned down\u2019 several federal officers and threw \u2018concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects\u2019 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\u2019s windows," the court wrote. "The federal government\u2019s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Implications of the Ruling<\/h2>\n

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\u2019s order. The California governor’s office and the White House didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.<\/p>\n

Wider Implications<\/h2>\n

The court case could have wider implications on the president\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The Court Case<\/h2>\n

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. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump\u2019s command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.<\/p>\n

Initial Ruling and Appeal<\/h2>\n

Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of \u201crebellion or danger of a rebellion.\u201d \u201cThe protests in Los Angeles fall far short of \u2018rebellion,\u2019\u201d 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\u2019t second guess the president\u2019s decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. This decision highlights the complex balance of power between the federal government and states, especially in matters of national security and public order. The implications of this ruling could be far-reaching, affecting not just California but other states as well, particularly in how they respond to future protests and emergencies.<\/p>\n

FAQs<\/h2>\n