A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump overstepped his legal authority when he took control of thousands of California National Guard troops and sent them into Los Angeles last year over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In a 2-1 decision in Newsom v. Trump, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court order that blocks the administration from deploying California Guard members in Los Angeles and directs that control of the Guard be returned to the governor.
How the case started
In June 2025, amid protests in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration enforcement, Trump invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, to call 4,000 members of the California National Guard into federal service for 60 days. The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal property and personnel.
California and Newsom, represented by state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, sued. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued an order blocking the deployment, and the administration appealed immediately. Early in the case, the same appeals panel had temporarily paused that order while the appeal moved forward, allowing the deployment to continue in the meantime.
What the court decided
Judge Jennifer Sung wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Eric Miller. The panel said a president’s power to federalize a state’s Guard depends on specific emergency conditions existing, and that a president’s judgment on whether those conditions exist can be reviewed by the courts. That review is “highly deferential,” the court said, but at a minimum judges must ask whether the president’s determination “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment.”
Applying that test, the panel found the administration had not shown the law allowed the move. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Trump v. Illinois, which involved the Illinois National Guard, the judges said the administration failed to make either of the two threshold showings that decision requires.
The court also rejected the administration’s other justification, that conditions in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, amounted to a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. The panel said California was likely to succeed in arguing that this determination did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.
Because neither part of the law authorized the order, the court said, the federalization exceeded the president’s statutory authority and intruded on Congress’s power to call forth the militia, violating the constitutional separation of powers. The panel added that California was also likely to win its related Tenth Amendment claim.
The dissent
Judge Mark Bennett dissented. He said the court should not have decided the appeal at all, and argued the majority made at least three errors: reaching difficult questions despite scant briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court’s Illinois decision, applying the wrong legal standard to the state’s claim, and concluding California was likely to win on its Tenth Amendment argument, which he said is unlikely to succeed.
The reaction
Newsom hailed the ruling. “Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy,” he said in a statement, adding that California had “created essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans.”
Online, supporters of the president criticized the judges, while California officials celebrated the decision as a win for state control of the Guard. The administration could seek further review, including from the full 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Why it matters
The decision squarely rejects the “rebellion” rationale for sending troops into an American city, and it lands less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, as debates over federal power and the use of troops at home remain front and center.