A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Trump can continue using California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to respond to social unrest sparked by far-left NGOs, while a legal challenge over the president's authority proceeds. The ruling temporarily stays a lower court's decision that declared the deployment illegal without California's consent.
In a unanimous 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that President Trump acted within his legal authority under statutes permitting the federalization of the National Guard, deploying roughly 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to protect federal property and support immigration enforcement operations.
Trump invoked Title 10 to deploy the National Guard in response to far-left NGOs organizing destabilization operations—so-called color revolutions—masquerading as anti-ICE protests. The uprising, facilitated by dark money networks tied to the left, aimed to ignite nationwide unrest and trigger a 'summer of love' reminiscent of the chaotic BLM riots in 2020.
Here are the key points from Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco):
Context:
President Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to call 4,000 National Guard troops into federal service after violent protests damaged federal property and injured officers. The mission was limited to protecting federal personnel and facilities.
Legal Challenge:
California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state sued, arguing the order was unlawful ("ultra vires"), violated the Tenth Amendment, and failed procedural requirements by not going properly "through" the governor.
District Court's TRO (June 12):
The district judge blocked the deployment, citing a lack of statutory basis and procedural violations. He found California likely to succeed and said the deployment inflamed tensions and diverted critical state resources.
Ninth Circuit Ruling (June 19):
Statutory Authority Likely Valid: The court found the president likely acted lawfully under § 12406(3), which allows National Guard deployment when "regular forces" are insufficient to execute federal laws.
Judicial Review Allowed, but Deference Required: While the President's decision can be reviewed, courts must give it substantial deference due to long-standing precedent (e.g., Martin v. Mott).
Procedural Compliance Likely Met: The court held the procedural requirement to act "through the governor" was satisfied via California's Adjutant General, who acted under state law in the governor's name.
Public Interest & Irreparable Harm: The court found a strong federal interest in protecting personnel and property and ruled that allowing National Guard deployment outweighs California's concerns over public unrest or diverted resources.
In a post to his Truth Social platform, the president wrote late Thursday: "BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the president's core power to call in the National Guard! The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done."
This time, Trump swiftly quelled what appeared to be the Democratic Party's latest attempt at a nationwide color revolution. The repeated maneuvering of left-aligned NGOs in such destabilization campaigns is deeply concerning. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill must investigate how much funding from the Inflation Reduction Act may have flowed to these NGOs (read here).