Appeals court halts ruling on Trump’s federalization of California National Guard

Friday 13 June 2025 - 10:50

By: Dakir Madiha

Appeals court halts ruling on Trump’s federalization of California National Guard

Federal court pauses controversial decision on state control of troops

A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily stayed a ruling requiring former President Donald Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to the state. The decision delays a significant legal challenge brought by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that Trump unlawfully federalized thousands of state National Guard members during protests in Los Angeles.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals announced it would hold a hearing on the matter next Tuesday. The case centers on whether Trump exceeded his authority and violated constitutional protections when he called up California’s troops without consulting the governor, citing claims of "rebellion."

Federal judge challenges Trump’s actions

Earlier this week, US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled that Trump’s federalization of over 4,000 National Guard members violated the Tenth Amendment and federal law. Breyer concluded that the protests in Los Angeles, which followed Trump’s controversial immigration policies, did not meet the legal threshold for a “rebellion” as defined by federal statutes.

“The protests fall far short of a rebellion,” Breyer wrote in his 36-page decision. “There is no evidence that the protesters sought to overthrow the government as a whole. They gathered to address a single issue: the immigration raids.”

The judge criticized arguments from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that anti-immigration protests justified federal intervention. Breyer warned that equating civil protests with rebellion could dangerously infringe on First Amendment rights. He further noted that Trump’s failure to issue orders “through the governor,” as required by federal law, constituted a procedural violation.

Implications for California governance

Breyer emphasized how Trump’s actions undermined California’s ability to govern its own National Guard. He noted that federalizing the troops deprived Governor Newsom of critical resources needed for state emergencies such as combating wildfires, addressing the fentanyl crisis, and other essential functions.

“The federalization of California’s National Guard prevents the governor from deploying them as needed,” Breyer stated. He also suggested that the militarization of protests in Los Angeles, with an increased federal presence, exacerbated tensions and posed risks to public safety.

“Demilitarization and de-escalation may better serve federal and local interests,” he added.

Legal and constitutional debate

The DOJ defended Trump’s actions, asserting that the president acted within his authority to address unrest, which it argued threatened public safety. However, Breyer dismissed these claims, stressing that protests—though occasionally violent—did not meet the federal standard of an insurrection.

The judge warned that labeling protests as rebellion could blur the line between constitutionally protected civil liberties and unlawful activities, writing, “Protests against the federal government are a core civil liberty, and stray acts of violence do not erase this right.”

Broader context and next steps

This legal battle is the latest in a series of confrontations between California and the Trump administration over states’ rights. While the appeals court’s decision pauses Breyer’s ruling, the upcoming hearing will determine whether Trump’s federalization of the National Guard will be permanently overturned.

Breyer’s ruling also touched on the deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, but he did not issue a conclusive judgment on whether their use for law enforcement violated federal law. The situation highlights ongoing tensions over the balance of power between the federal government and states, particularly in politically contested issues involving immigration and civil protests.