Appeals Court Seems Inclined to Let Trump Control National Guard in L.A. for Now
A three-judge panel sounded skeptical of California’s arguments that President Trump should return control of National Guard troops to the state.
By Charlie Savage and Laurel Rosenhall
June 17, 2025
A federal appeals court appeared inclined on Tuesday to allow President Trump, against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, to keep using California’s National Guard for now to protect immigration enforcement agents and quell protesters in Los Angeles. … Throughout a 65-minute hearing, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signaled skepticism of the idea that the judiciary should second-guess Mr. Trump’s determination that deploying the state militia to Los Angeles is necessary to protect federal agents and buildings.
The hearing came at a time when local organizers have vowed to continue protesting against immigration raids, though demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles have quieted since the weekend. … A district court judge, Charles Breyer, determined last week that Mr. Trump’s use of the National Guard was illegal and temporarily ordered the president to return control of the forces to Mr. Newsom.
But the Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling, and the Ninth Circuit panel stayed the lower court decision while it considered the matter. It seemed likely on Tuesday that the panel, which consists of two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., would keep that stay in place.
The two Trump appointees, Judges Mark J. Bennett and Eric D. Miller, did the bulk of the talking. Both appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts have no ability to review Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke a statute allowing him to call up the Guard. But they also seemed inclined to find that the sometimes violent protests in Los Angeles were enough to defer to Mr. Trump’s decision.
And when a lawyer for California argued that Congress had not granted presidents sweeping discretion to decide when federalizing the National Guard would be justified, the Biden appointee, Judge Jennifer Sung, expressed doubt about his view. … “If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you, but the problem I see for you,” she said, is that an 1827 Supreme Court precedent interpreting a president’s power under a similar law “seemingly rejected the exact argument that you’re making.”
{snip}
Richard Fausset contributed reporting.
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.
Laurel Rosenhall is a Sacramento-based reporter covering California politics and government for The Times.
A version of this article appears in print on June 18, 2025, Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: Court Signals Trump Can Keep His Control Over the Guard in L.A.. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
= new reply since forum marked as read