The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, comprising a three-judge panel, has shown significant skepticism towards California Governor Gavin Newsom’s legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles County. The court’s doubts stem from the complex legal question of whether the judiciary has the authority to review the president’s use of the military, as highlighted by a 1827 legal precedent that affirms the executive branch’s exclusive control over the militia.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the judges subjected Newsom’s legal arguments to thorough scrutiny, challenging the state attorney’s case for an injunction against Trump’s actions. Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, questioned the panel’s ability to intervene, while Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, raised concerns about the broad scope of presidential authority over the National Guard.
The panel is currently deliberating whether to extend a temporary injunction that previously halted Trump’s use of National Guard troops in parts of Los Angeles. This injunction was issued by a Clinton-appointed judge, Judge Charles Breyer, who had previously blocked Trump from federalizing the National Guard. The court is now weighing whether to uphold that decision, which has significant implications for the use of federal forces in domestic law enforcement scenarios.
Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth invoked Title 10 provisions of the U.S. Code to justify the National Guard deployment, asserting that it was necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and federal buildings during recent immigration raids. DOJ attorneys argued that the law allows for the use of the National Guard in cases of a rebellion or invasion, or when federal authorities are unable to carry out their duties. They contended that the situation did not meet these criteria, and that Trump was not required to obtain Newsom’s permission to deploy the National Guard, only to notify him.
Newsom and his legal team have fiercely opposed the federalization of the National Guard, arguing that the deployment has worsened the unrest and led to more rioting incidents. They maintain that the situation did not ‘remotely’ meet the criteria under Title 10 for such a measure. In court filings, Newsom’s attorneys emphasized that the number of arrests made by local and state law enforcement, including over 1,000 related to protest activity, does not satisfy the legal definition of a rebellion or invasion.
Since June 7, Trump has federalized 4,000 National Guard members and enlisted 700 Marines to support ICE operations in California, where federal raids have intensified. ICE officials have described the National Guard’s presence as essential in maintaining order at the 300 N. Los Angeles Federal Building, which has been a focal point for protests and unrest since the immigration raids began. An ICE official’s affidavit stated that without the National Guard, rioters and protestors assaulted federal, state, and local law enforcement with rocks, fireworks, and other objects, and damaged federal property by spray-painting death threats to officers.
The case has sparked a broader debate over the extent of presidential power in domestic law enforcement and the appropriate role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions. The outcome of this legal battle could reshape the legal framework for future instances where the executive branch employs federal forces in internal conflicts, potentially setting a precedent for future challenges to presidential authority.