A federal appeals court has sided with President Donald Trump, ruling that he can maintain control over the California National Guard. This decision reverses a previous ruling that deemed the President’s mobilization of the troops “illegal.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ temporary order allows the President to continue directing the thousands of National Guard members deployed to Los Angeles to manage unrest related to the Administration’s immigration policy. This deployment faced a challenge from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued it violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines the powers of state and federal governments. Additionally, 700 Marines have been deployed to L.A.
The unanimous opinion, delivered by a three-judge panel consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, overturned a lower court’s decision. The lower court had found that Trump did not meet the legal requirements for calling in the National Guard under the invoked law.
Trump celebrated the appeals court’s decision on Truth Social, his social media platform. He stated that the judges recognized Gov. Newsom’s incompetence and that the ruling’s significance extends beyond Newsom, allowing federal intervention when cities and people need protection if state and local police are unable to provide it.
Although the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it rejected the Administration’s argument that the National Guard deployment was beyond review.
Newsom welcomed the aspect of the decision that allows for review and indicated ongoing litigation. He stated that the court correctly denied Trump’s claim of unchecked authority over the National Guard and that the challenge to Trump’s “authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens” would continue.
Here’s the appeals court’s explanation of Trump’s authority to deploy the National Guard.
Trump “likely acted within his authority”
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling indicated that the President likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” by invoking the relevant statute. This statute grants the President power to deploy the National Guard if regular forces cannot enforce laws, or if there’s an invasion or risk of rebellion.
The Trump Administration argued that there was “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States.”
However, the judges stated that the “protests in Los Angeles fall short of rebellion,” while acknowledging the unrest and potential risks to federal officials and property. They dismissed Newsom’s concerns about the National Guard’s presence escalating tensions between protesters and law enforcement as “too speculative.”
The judges also addressed Newsom’s claim that Trump’s actions were illegal due to his lack of involvement in the troop deployment. The court determined that the Secretary of Defense’s “transmittal of the order” to the California National Guard’s Adjutant General, who can issue orders in the Governor’s name, satisfied the necessary procedural requirements for deploying the National Guard.
The President’s decisions to deploy the National Guard are not above review
The federal government contended that Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard was “unreviewable” because the statute used granted him power to mobilize “such numbers as he considers necessary.”
The judges stated that while they should be “highly deferential” to the President, they rejected the claim that federalizing the National Guard is “completely insulated from judicial review.”
Trump’s activation of the National Guard marked the first instance in sixty years of a President doing so without the governor’s consent.
“`
