Federal court supports Trump’s national guard deployment in California

A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can keep control of thousands of California National Guard troops and continue deploying them in Los Angeles, pausing a lower court’s ruling that called the federalisation unlawful.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the president’s authority to deploy at least 4,000 National Guard personnel along with several hundred Marines while further legal proceedings continue, Caliber.Az reports, citing US media.

This comes despite opposition from state leaders, who regard the military presence as unnecessary and likely to escalate tensions.

The appeals court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue on June 17.

Earlier on June 12, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order halting the deployment in Los Angeles, ruling that the federal government lacked the legal authority to nationalise California’s National Guard.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presiding in San Francisco, delivered the order following an hour-long hearing. The decision marked a setback for President Trump, who recently increased the number of National Guard troops under his command in California in an effort to assert executive power amid protests sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, strongly opposed the president’s deployment, arguing that militarised law enforcement would aggravate protests and that the federal government did not take control of the Guard in accordance with federal law.

“The Department of Defence did not transmit this directive to the Office of the Governor, nor was it approved or ordered by the Governor of California,” Newsom wrote in a letter urging the administration to relinquish control of the troops.

Following this, California Attorney General Rob Bonta challenged the deployment in federal court, formalising concerns that the administration failed to properly adhere to the statute governing the federalisation of state National Guard forces.

Judge Breyer appeared to concur, issuing a ruling broader than the state had requested.

Bonta’s case aimed to prevent Guard members from engaging in civilian law enforcement or immigration duties, which they are typically prohibited from performing under federal law. However, Breyer ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority by federalising the troops without notifying Governor Newsom, as required by the relevant statute.

During hearing, government lawyers contended that the administration complied with the federal statute regulating National Guard call-ups. Yet in his written order, Judge Breyer disagreed, stating that the Trump administration had “met none of those requirements.”

"His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote. “He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

At a press conference, Newsom welcomed the ruling, calling it “a big day for the Constitution of the United States” and “our democracy.” He added, “I hope it’s the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach. We push back against these authoritarian tendencies of a president that has pushed the boundaries, push the limit, but no longer can push this state around.”

The White House did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Justice Department attorneys criticised Judge Breyer’s decision as an assault on presidential authority.

"The district court has entered an unprecedented order enjoining the President from deploying National Guardsmen to protect federal officers from ongoing violent protests and attacks, and to protect federal property from further damage," they wrote.

They described the order as “an extraordinary intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to call forth the National Guard as necessary to protect federal officials.”

“The district court concluded that the statutory conditions were not satisfied,” the Justice Department lawyers said. “But that sort of second-guessing of the Commander in Chief’s military judgments is a gross violation of the separation of powers. Nearly 200 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear that these judgment calls are for the President to make, not a Governor, and certainly not a federal court.”

Judge Breyer’s order did not extend to the deployment of 700 Marines in Los Angeles. During the hearing, he expressed doubts about his ability to regulate their movements, noting that the California governor does not have authority over the Marine Corps. “I don’t understand how I’m supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,” he said.

By Aghakazim Guliyev