A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 on Friday that former President Donald Trump lacked legal authority to federalize 4,000 California National Guard troops in June 2025 and deploy them to Los Angeles amid civil unrest. The decision upholds a lower court’s injunction blocking the deployment, affirming that the order exceeded the president’s statutory authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
The panel, composed of Judges Jennifer Sung, Eric D. Miller, and Mark J. Bennett, split along ideological lines: Judges Sung and Miller, both appointed by Democratic presidents, formed the majority, while Judge Bennett, a Trump appointee, dissented. The majority found that Trump’s order encroached on Congress’s constitutional power to call forth the National Guard, violating the separation of powers. The ruling also rejected the administration’s argument that the deployment was justified under an obscure statute, stating that the conditions in Los Angeles did not meet the threshold for federal intervention under federal law.
California filed suit shortly after Trump’s order, with Attorney General Rob Bonta and state officials arguing that the deployment was an unconstitutional power grab. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer initially granted a temporary restraining order, but the 9th Circuit temporarily stayed his ruling, allowing the deployment to proceed while the appeal was pending. The appeals court’s decision now permanently blocks the federalization, closing a legal pathway the Trump administration had suggested could be used again under similar circumstances.
The case centered on whether the unrest in Los Angeles qualified as a ‘rebellion or danger of rebellion’ under federal law, a standard the majority determined was not met. The ruling also addressed the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, though the court did not rule on its applicability in this instance. Legal experts noted that the decision reinforces longstanding limits on presidential authority to deploy state National Guard troops without state consent, a principle that has been tested in prior administrations.
The Trump administration had argued that the deployment was necessary to address violence linked to immigration enforcement, a claim the court did not substantively address in its ruling. The administration’s legal team contended that the obscure statute they relied upon provided a novel mechanism to bypass the more stringent requirements of the Insurrection Act. The 9th Circuit’s decision effectively forecloses that interpretation, though it does not address whether similar deployments could be attempted under other legal authorities.
California officials celebrated the ruling, with Bonta calling it a vindication of state sovereignty and a rebuke to what he described as an attempt to ‘seize control’ of the California National Guard. The state had argued that the deployment undermined Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authority over the Guard, a core component of the National Guard’s dual federal-state structure. The ruling does not affect the Guard’s traditional role in disaster response or other state-led missions, which remain under Newsom’s command.
The decision comes amid ongoing debates over the balance of power between federal and state authorities, particularly in matters of public safety and immigration enforcement. Legal scholars have noted that the ruling may have broader implications for future disputes over presidential authority, though the court’s decision is specific to the facts of this case. The 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers California and several other western states, making the ruling particularly significant for states with large National Guard presences.
No further appeals were immediately announced following the decision, though legal analysts suggested that the Trump administration or its supporters could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case does not address the underlying civil unrest in Los Angeles or the immigration policies that prompted the deployment, focusing solely on the legal authority invoked by the president.