Marines and National Guard troops communicate as they deal with protesters on the front steps of the Edward Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, Calif., June 14, 2025.
Los Angeles, California – A federal appeals court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a significant legal win, allowing him to retain control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles in response to escalating protests over immigration enforcement actions. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halts a lower court ruling that found the president had overstepped his legal authority by mobilizing troops without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The ruling marks the first time since 1965 that a president has federalized a state’s National Guard over the objections of a sitting governor. At the heart of the legal battle is the question of whether a president has the power to override a governor’s authority and deploy military forces within state borders during periods of civil unrest.
The court concluded that while presidential authority is not absolute, the Trump administration had presented a plausible case for federal intervention. The panel cited documented violence against federal officers, including reports of protestors throwing concrete, smashing government vehicles, and forcing the closure of federal buildings. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant,” the judges wrote.
Trump, who has repeatedly positioned himself as a law-and-order candidate heading into the 2028 election cycle, celebrated the court’s ruling on his Truth Social platform, calling it a “BIG WIN.” He added that the federal government “will provide protection where local forces fail.”
Gov. Newsom expressed disappointment over the court’s decision, reiterating his view that Trump’s unilateral deployment was both inflammatory and unnecessary. Still, he welcomed the court’s rejection of Trump’s broader claim to unchecked executive power. “The President is not a king and is not above the law,” Newsom said in a statement. “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”
The legal dispute stems from protests in Los Angeles that followed immigration raids ordered by ICE, which sparked widespread demonstrations and clashes with law enforcement. Trump cited those confrontations as justification for deploying troops to restore order, but critics say the move was more about political theater than public safety.
While the protests have since quieted, the constitutional questions raised by the case remain unresolved. Legal experts suggest the final outcome could have lasting implications for presidential authority over domestic military deployments—especially in politically divided states where tensions between local and federal governments continue to rise. The case is expected to return to district court for further proceedings.
