A federal appeals court on Tuesday weighed the legality of former President Donald Trump’s controversial deployment of more than 4,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles, a move that bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom and ignited a fierce legal battle over presidential power, state sovereignty, and the limits of federal authority.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, convened a three-judge panel to hear arguments regarding a Justice Department request to overturn a lower court’s decision that blocked Trump’s June 7 order federalizing the California National Guard. The order was issued in response to large-scale protests sparked by federal immigration raids in the Los Angeles area earlier this month.
At the heart of the dispute is whether Trump exceeded his authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute that outlines the conditions under which the president can bring a state’s National Guard under federal command. The Trump administration contends that the unrest in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion” — one of three specific scenarios under which Title 10 permits such a deployment.
Trump Administration Defends Federalization as Necessary and Unreviewable
Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department, argued that Trump’s decision to invoke Title 10 powers is nonjusticiable — meaning it is not subject to judicial review. He warned the court that allowing a state governor to override such a decision would amount to an unconstitutional check on the president’s role as commander-in-chief.
“This interpretation of the law is dangerous,” Shumate told the court. “It would allow Governor Newsom to exercise a pocket veto over federal decisions concerning national security and military operations.”
Shumate also requested that if the appeals court declined to reverse the injunction, it should allow time for the Justice Department to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.
California Counters: “Grave Overreach” of Federal Power
Representing California, Deputy Solicitor General Sam Harbourt asserted that Trump’s order was overly broad and unjustified. He argued that the president did not explore “modest” or alternative measures before taking the “grave and extraordinary step” of federalizing the National Guard.
Harbourt emphasized that deploying troops in response to civilian protests — particularly without the governor’s consent — risks exacerbating tensions rather than maintaining peace. “The continued military presence is not a de-escalation tactic,” he told the court. “It may serve only to provoke further unrest.”
He further contended that Trump violated federal law by issuing deployment orders through California’s adjutant general, bypassing Governor Newsom, which he said is not permissible under the plain language of Title 10.
Judicial Panel Expresses Mixed Reactions
The three-judge panel — Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller, both appointed by Trump, and Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Joe Biden — appeared divided and probing in their questioning.
Judge Bennett showed initial skepticism toward the Trump administration’s assertion that its actions were immune to court oversight, though he also pressed Harbourt on where the law explicitly requires the president to consider alternative actions or consult the governor before invoking Title 10.
Judge Miller raised a key procedural issue, noting that California law may treat the adjutant general as a proxy for the governor, which could potentially validate the Trump administration’s notice through military channels rather than the governor’s office.
Background: Protests, Raids, and Legal Fallout
The controversy stems from mass protests that erupted in early June after federal immigration agents launched coordinated raids across Los Angeles. In response to what Trump described as civil unrest posing a threat to law enforcement and federal property, he ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to the city, later expanding the operation to more than 4,000 troops and including 700 active-duty U.S. Marines.
In his memorandum, Trump cited a “rebellion” in Los Angeles, thereby triggering his claimed authority under Title 10. However, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, in a ruling issued last week, blocked the move, stating that the administration’s characterization of the protests was legally unfounded and constitutionally troubling.
“The implication that protest against the federal government — a core liberty protected by the First Amendment — can be equated to rebellion is deeply concerning,” Judge Breyer wrote. He concluded that the protests “fall far short” of a violent, armed uprising against the U.S. government and that Trump’s actions violated the spirit and letter of Title 10.
California’s Broader Concerns: “Unchecked Power”
In legal filings, California officials warned that the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title 10 opens the door to unchecked federal power. They argued that it would allow a president to override state control of their National Guard whenever civil dissent emerges, regardless of severity or cause.
“This view would sideline the judiciary, ignore Congress’s limitations, and trample over states’ sovereign interests in their militias,” California’s brief stated. The brief warned that such authority could be misused in the future to suppress political dissent or protests ahead of elections.
What’s Next?
The 9th Circuit has yet to rule on whether to uphold or lift the district court’s injunction, but the outcome will have significant implications for federal-state relations, military authority, and the boundaries of presidential power.
If the court sides with the Trump administration, it could set a precedent for broader use of federalized military forces during domestic unrest, potentially without the consent of state leaders. A ruling in favor of California, on the other hand, would reinforce limits on federal power and affirm the primacy of state control over local National Guard units.
The panel’s decision is expected soon, and whichever side loses is likely to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for immediate review.
User Intent Answer: Why does this matter?
This case raises critical constitutional questions about presidential authority, state sovereignty, and civil liberties. At issue is whether the federal government can override a state’s control of its National Guard in the absence of war or insurrection, simply due to civilian protests. The outcome will shape how future presidents — regardless of party — can respond to civil unrest and deploy military resources domestically.
Stay tuned for the court’s decision, which could reverberate far beyond California.
