A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he seized control of California’s National Guard and sent troops into Los Angeles in June 2025, flatly rejecting the administration’s claim that protests in the city amounted to a “rebellion.”
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court order that blocked the deployment and directed the administration to return control of the Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
What Trump did
In June 2025, during protests over federal immigration raids, Trump invoked a federal law to place about 4,000 members of the California National Guard under federal control for 60 days, saying they were needed to protect federal property and personnel. He did it over the objection of Newsom, who as governor is commander-in-chief of the state’s Guard. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued on behalf of the state and the governor.
What the court found
Writing for the majority, Judge Jennifer Sung said the administration failed to show the law allowed the move. The panel relied on a Supreme Court ruling last year in a similar case involving the Illinois National Guard, which held that a president can’t federalize the Guard on the grounds that he is unable to execute the laws with regular forces unless he first has legal authority to use the regular military for that purpose. The court found the administration had made neither of the required showings.
The judges also threw out the administration’s fallback argument: that the unrest in Los Angeles was “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.” The court noted that while some protesters committed violence, most demonstrated peacefully, local police brought the situation under control, and there was no evidence of an organized effort to overthrow the government.
The president’s determination “does not reflect a colorable assessment within a ‘range of honest judgment,’” Sung wrote. The court concluded the order violated the constitutional separation of powers and the 10th Amendment.
A reversal, and a dissent
The ruling marks a turnaround from the same panel’s earlier position: the judges had previously sided with Trump in a temporary order that allowed the deployment to proceed while the case played out.
Judge Eric Miller joined the majority. Judge Mark Bennett dissented, arguing the court should not have decided the appeal and that California lacked a valid legal basis to sue. “In today’s majority opinion, that Hail Mary pass scores,” he wrote of the state’s claim.
“A crucial day for the rule of law”
Newsom celebrated the decision. “Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy,” he said in a statement. “California continues to stand as a first line of defense against Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”
Bonta said deploying the Guard in Los Angeles “with no rhyme or reason was a clear example of federal overreach, and it will not be tolerated.”
The governor’s office argued the rejection of Trump’s “rebellion” claim is an important safeguard heading into next month’s elections, putting the president on notice that courts will push back on claims of emergencies used to justify sending troops into communities.
What’s next
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Separate appeals over extensions of the deployment, and over a ruling that the troops’ use violated the Posse Comitatus Act, are still pending.