The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set to rule on the legality of President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles County, a move that California Governor Gavin Newsom claims violates the law. During a hearing, the three-judge panel expressed skepticism about Newsom’s argument, questioning whether the court has the authority to review his claims. The judges referenced a 1827 case that established the president’s exclusive authority over the militia, raising doubts about the legal foundation of Newsom’s lawsuit.
During the hearing, Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, challenged the legal reasoning behind Newsom’s request. He questioned how the court could justify an injunction against the president’s actions, given the historical precedent that grants executive authority over the National Guard. Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, noted the ambiguity in the interpretation of the law, emphasizing that the 1827 decision grants the president broad discretion in determining the need for military presence.
The panel is considering whether to extend an injunction that had temporarily blocked Trump’s use of National Guard members in Los Angeles. This injunction was issued by a lower court, citing the lack of a rebellion or invasion to justify federalization of the Guard. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth argued that the deployment was necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and federal buildings, invoking a provision of Title 10. The provision requires a rebellion or invasion, or that federal authorities are unable to carry out their duties, and that the president notify the governor before federalizing the Guard.
Newsom’s legal team contended that the circumstances in Los Angeles did not meet the criteria for federalization under Title 10. They argued that the deployment of the National Guard exacerbated the unrest and led to more violent incidents, despite the lack of a formal rebellion or invasion. The state attorneys emphasized that the situation did not amount to a ‘rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ or a situation where the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’ Meanwhile, the Department of Justice maintained that the National Guard’s deployment was essential to protecting ICE officials and maintaining order during the immigration raids.
The case has significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly in the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. As the Ninth Circuit panel deliberates, the outcome could set a legal precedent for how future executive actions involving the National Guard are assessed. The ongoing tension between Newsom and Trump reflects broader ideological divides around the role of the military in maintaining public order and the limits of presidential authority in domestic affairs.