A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to maintain control over roughly 4,000 California National Guard members whom he had federalized to bolster security in Los Angeles during unrest related to immigration enforcement.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Trump’s request to lift a lower court ruling that had ordered him to relinquish control. The ruling states it is likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority under the federal law he invoked earlier this month, rejecting California Governor Gavin Newsom’s claim that Trump violated federal law.
Typically, the federal government sets vehicle emission standards, but California receives waivers to implement stricter rules due to its historic air quality challenges. This has led to automakers generally adhering to California’s tougher standards nationwide.
In this case, the 9th Circuit focused on whether the companies and trade groups had standing to sue, rather than reviewing the waiver itself. The lower court had ruled against Trump, citing violations including the requirement that federalization orders go “through the governor.”
The appeals court disagreed with some of the government’s legal arguments but ultimately applied a highly deferential standard to the President’s decision, acknowledging Trump had a “colorable basis” to invoke the law amid protests targeting federal property.
Procedural Compliance and Future Implications
Though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent the federalization memo to the California National Guard’s top general instead of Governor Newsom, the court found this likely satisfied the legal procedural requirement since the general acts as the governor’s agent.
The ruling arrives after unrest in Los Angeles has calmed, but legal disputes over Trump’s authority and the use of federalized troops are expected to continue in federal court.
Following the ruling, President Trump celebrated the decision on his social platform, calling it a “BIG WIN” that reinforces federal authority to protect cities if local police cannot maintain order.
A hearing is scheduled for Friday in the federal court in San Francisco to address ongoing questions about how the troops are being deployed on the ground.
Author’s Opinion
The appeals court’s decision reflects the delicate balance between federal power and state sovereignty, especially in times of civil unrest. While national security is paramount, bypassing state leadership risks escalating tensions and undermining local governance. The ongoing legal battles underscore the need for clearer rules about when and how federal troops should be deployed in states, to protect both public safety and democratic principles.
Featured image credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr
For more stories like it, click the +Follow button at the top of this page to follow us.