A federal appeals court has allowed President Donald Trump to maintain command over National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, marking a significant legal victory for the former president. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a unanimous ruling on Thursday, affirming that Trump likely exercised his lawful authority under the federal statute that permits the federalization of the National Guard when local law enforcement is unable to execute the laws of the United States.
The ruling upheld Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard units to Los Angeles without prior notification to Governor Gavin Newsom, citing that the president’s actions fell within his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court rejected the argument that the president’s deployment was entirely insulated from judicial review, emphasizing that the judiciary retains the power to assess the legality of executive actions in such cases.
Trump, in a social media post Thursday night, hailed the decision as a ‘BIG WIN’ for the National Guard’s role in protecting American citizens. He criticized Newsom’s governance, stating that the governor was ‘incompetent and ill prepared,’ and argued that the ruling reinforces the federal government’s responsibility to safeguard the public when state and local law enforcement are unable to do so. This decision is seen as a broader assertion of presidential power in matters of national security and public safety.
The ruling comes amid ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s actions, including his consideration of military action against Iran, which he has said is necessary to protect American interests. Critics argue that Trump’s approach to executive power could set a dangerous precedent, expanding the scope of the presidency over areas traditionally managed by state governments. However, supporters view the decision as a necessary affirmation of federal authority in times of crisis.
Legal analysts note that while the court recognized the president’s authority, it also emphasized that such power is not unlimited and can be subject to judicial scrutiny. The case highlights the tensions between federal and state powers and raises questions about the extent of executive authority in managing domestic security matters.