Court Rules Trump Lawfully Seized California National Guard

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump had a defensible rationale to seize control of the California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision overturns a lower court ruling that found Trump's actions illegal, as he activated the soldiers without the permission of California Governor Gavin Newsom. This marks the first instance since 1965 where a president has federalized a state National Guard without gubernatorial consent.

The three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that Trump likely exercised his authority lawfully. The court acknowledged that while presidents do not have unlimited power to seize control of a state’s guard, the Trump administration presented sufficient evidence to justify the action. The court cited violent acts by protesters, including attacks on federal officers and damage to federal buildings, as a significant federal interest in preventing such incidents.

The court also determined that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor before federalizing the National Guard, as required by law, Newsom lacked the power to veto the president’s order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, emphasizing the federal government's role in protecting citizens when state and local police are unable to do so.

Newsom expressed disappointment with the court's decision but welcomed the rejection of Trump's claim that he can act without explanation to a court. He reiterated that the president is not above the law and vowed to continue challenging Trump's use of military soldiers against citizens. The court case could have broader implications for the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States, especially in light of Trump's directive to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

Trump argued that the troops were necessary to restore order, while Newsom contended that the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority, and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term, and during oral arguments, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to intervene.

The case began when Newsom sued to block Trump’s command and initially won a victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents to take control during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.” The Trump administration argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s decisions and quickly secured a stay from the appeals court.

The ruling means that control of the California National Guard will remain in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. The decision highlights the ongoing legal and political debate over the extent of presidential powers in deploying military forces within the United States.