A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump may continue exercising control over California’s National Guard, despite an ongoing lawsuit by Governor Gavin Newsom challenging the legality of the federal deployment. The lawsuit stems from Trump’s controversial 2025 decision to mobilize 4,000 National Guard troops and later deploy U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to widespread protests.
The deployment sparked nationwide debate over the role of military forces in domestic affairs and intensified political tensions in California — the country’s second-most populous state.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco extended its temporary suspension of a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. That June 12 decision held that Trump had overstepped legal bounds by federalizing California’s National Guard without properly coordinating with the governor.
In their ruling, the appellate judges found it likely that Trump acted within his presidential authority and may have met the statutory coordination requirements with Governor Newsom. They further stated that even if coordination did not occur, the governor lacked the power to override the president’s decision.
“And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,”
the court wrote in its opinion.
The panel acknowledged that Governor Newsom could still challenge the deployment under other legal provisions, particularly those that restrict the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement operations. The matter is expected to be further examined during a Friday court hearing before Judge Breyer.
In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Governor Newsom expressed his continued opposition to the federal action.
“The president is not a king and is not above the law,”
Newsom stated.
“We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against our citizens.”
Trump, meanwhile, welcomed the appellate decision on his Truth Social platform.
“This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans,”
he wrote.
“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.”
Judge Breyer’s earlier ruling found that Trump had failed to meet statutory requirements allowing a president to take control of a state’s National Guard. These requirements include the presence of an invasion, rebellion, or a situation where the federal government is unable to enforce the law with regular forces. Breyer concluded that none of these conditions applied at the time of Trump’s deployment.
However, the appeals court suggested that the final condition — an inability of law enforcement to maintain order — may have been satisfied. The court cited incidents during the protests where demonstrators reportedly threw objects at government vehicles, used dumpsters as battering rams, launched Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property.
Although the Justice Department argued that a president’s determination of such an emergency should be exempt from judicial review, the 9th Circuit rejected that position.
The protests, which were sparked by Trump’s immigration enforcement operations, persisted in Los Angeles for over a week before subsiding, prompting Mayor Karen Bass to lift the citywide curfew.
California’s lawsuit, filed on June 9, maintains that the deployment of both the National Guard and Marines violated the state’s sovereignty and federal laws, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military forces in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has countered that the troops were not engaging in police activities but were instead safeguarding federal infrastructure and personnel — particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
The three-judge appellate panel included two Trump appointees and one judge appointed by former President Joe Biden. Judge Breyer has yet to issue a ruling on the legality of the Marine Corps deployment.
