A federal appeals court has decided to permit the Trump administration to retain control over California's National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, pending further hearings regarding the legality of their deployment amidst ongoing protests and immigration enforcement actions.
Court Rules Temporarily in Favor of Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles
Court Rules Temporarily in Favor of Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles
Federal appeals court halts order for California's National Guard to return control to the state amid Trump’s immigration crackdown.
In a notable legal decision, an appeals court has issued a temporary stay against a federal judge’s order that mandated the return of California’s National Guard troops to state control. This ruling was made in the context of President Trump's controversial order to deploy the troops to Los Angeles, citing the need to quell unrest related to his administration's immigration raids.
Earlier in the day, federal Judge Charles Breyer had ruled the deployment illegal, asserting that President Trump had overstepped his authority by deploying troops typically overseen by the governor. “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,” the judge stated before issuing a stay on the order until Friday.
Governor Gavin Newsom has vocally opposed this military presence in the city, arguing that the National Guard should not be used to address civil disturbances and indicating that such actions only escalate tensions. Despite these objections, Trump maintained that the troops were necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities as they conducted sweeps for undocumented individuals.
During the courtroom proceedings, Judge Breyer reaffirmed the limits of presidential authority, making comparisons to historical abuses of power. Notably, he remarked, “The president isn't the commander-in-chief of the National Guard.” Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed reluctance to comply with the judge's order, claiming local judges should not dictate U.S. foreign or national security policy.
The appeals court’s decision to allow the deployment to continue comes as California argues in its lawsuit that the protests—which saw over 300 arrests and significant disruptions—should not be characterized as a rebellion, as defined by the law typically invoked for deploying the National Guard in federal service.
This ongoing legal battle showcases the clash of authority between state and federal governance, particularly regarding the deployment of military forces in domestic scenarios, marking a significant moment in Trump’s controversial approach to protests and immigration policy.
As the legal proceedings progress, attention will remain on the implications of this ruling for state rights and the use of military force in civilian areas during times of unrest.
Earlier in the day, federal Judge Charles Breyer had ruled the deployment illegal, asserting that President Trump had overstepped his authority by deploying troops typically overseen by the governor. “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,” the judge stated before issuing a stay on the order until Friday.
Governor Gavin Newsom has vocally opposed this military presence in the city, arguing that the National Guard should not be used to address civil disturbances and indicating that such actions only escalate tensions. Despite these objections, Trump maintained that the troops were necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities as they conducted sweeps for undocumented individuals.
During the courtroom proceedings, Judge Breyer reaffirmed the limits of presidential authority, making comparisons to historical abuses of power. Notably, he remarked, “The president isn't the commander-in-chief of the National Guard.” Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed reluctance to comply with the judge's order, claiming local judges should not dictate U.S. foreign or national security policy.
The appeals court’s decision to allow the deployment to continue comes as California argues in its lawsuit that the protests—which saw over 300 arrests and significant disruptions—should not be characterized as a rebellion, as defined by the law typically invoked for deploying the National Guard in federal service.
This ongoing legal battle showcases the clash of authority between state and federal governance, particularly regarding the deployment of military forces in domestic scenarios, marking a significant moment in Trump’s controversial approach to protests and immigration policy.
As the legal proceedings progress, attention will remain on the implications of this ruling for state rights and the use of military force in civilian areas during times of unrest.
