Voting in Aitkin, Columbia Heights, Faribault, Little Falls, Staples-Motley and Wayzata

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

A federal appeals court in California has ruled that President Trump can maintain control over California National Guard troops in Los Angeles — rejecting at least temporarily Gov. Gavin Newsom's attempt to take back control of the Guard. 

 over control of the Guard. Trump took control nearly two weeks ago saying it was needed to protect federal property and prevent interference with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other federal officers, whose detention and deportation tactics had prompted protests.

The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Sunday is temporary. It blocks a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer a week ago that said Trump was using the Guard in L.A. illegally and that he had to relinquish control back to the state.

Breyer's 36-page ruling, in response to a lawsuit against Trump by Newsom, said Trump's "actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." The Tenth Amendment spells out powers of state and federal governments. 

He also rejected an assertion by Trump that L.A.'s protests amounted to a rebellion against federal authority. Breyer acknowledged there was violence in some instances but said, "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion."

But the three-judge appeals panel Sunday night disagreed with the lower court judge's determination that the unrest in L.A. did not justify Trump deploying the Guard. The court said a president can deploy the Guard to prevent interference with the execution of federal law — setting aside the question of a "rebellion." 

The 38-page appeals court ruling noted incidents of violence listed by administration attorneys, including protesters targeting local and federal law enforcement with Molotov cocktails and "mortar-style fireworks." The ruling said one Customs and Border Patrol agent suffered a "shattered wrist." It also noted damage to federal property.

While the appeals court rejected administration lawyers' assertions that courts cannot review a president's decision to activate the Guard, it said that courts should be "highly deferential" to the president on the issue. The appeals court also brushed off California's claims that the presence of the Guard could escalate tensions, calling that "speculative."

Trump federalized and deployed some 4,000 Guard and 700 U.S. Marines over Newsom's objections on June 7 after a day of increasingly unruly protests against ICE tactics. National Guard units across the country are under the command of governors but can be federalized by presidents.  

This ruling does not address the status of the Marines. And another hearing is scheduled in the lower court for Friday on who should control the Guard in the short term as the legal issues in California's challenge to Trump's use of the Guard are considered further.

In his initial order deploying the Guard, Trump said there had been attempts to impede immigration agents in L.A. that constituted "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." His lawyers cited images of burning cars and crowds blocking the movement of ICE agents.

It was the first time in 60 years that a president had activated a state's National Guard over the objections of the state's governor. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.

Trump posted on Truth Social that Sunday's ruling is a "BIG WIN" and said Newsom is "incompetent and ill prepared." The two men have been trading insults for weeks. Newsom said in a statement that, "The fight doesn't end here," and that, "The President is not a king and is not above the law."

At a hearing June 12, attorneys for California argued Trump's federalization of national guard troops was unlawful. Newsom has said he wasn't consulted before Trump decided to take control of the Guard. The Democratic governor has also argued the military presence would increase tensions between protesters and law enforcement and that local law enforcement could handle the protests.

California's attorneys also wanted the courts to block Trump's deployment of the Marines to L.A., but Breyer declined to rule on that issue because they had yet to be sent out to the area.

Attorneys for the federal government argued Trump acted within his constitutional authority to call in National Guard troops. They said the administration met the legal requirement to go "through" Governor Newsom in mobilizing the National Guard because they coordinated with the Guard's adjutant general in California, who represents the governor.

Breyer ordered Trump to hand over control of the Guard the next day. But within three hours, the appeals court had blocked Breyer's ruling. Sunday's ruling rejected a California attempt to remove that block. 

Politics and Government News

Social Issues

Immigration

Homepage

Laura Fitzgerald

Author

Larry Kaplow

The ruling maintains a block on a lower court's order that found President Trump was using the Guard in LA illegally in his immigration crackdown. 

An appeals court backs Trump’s control of the California National Guard for now

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox