• A federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Trump, allowing the continued federalization of California’s National Guard to respond to protests in Los Angeles, citing presidential authority under Title 10. The decision highlights tensions between federal and state powers, sparking debates over executive overreach and the use of military forces in civilian affairs.

LOS ANGELES, CA — A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of President Trump, extending its block on a lower court’s order that would have required the president to return control of California’s National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The decision allows the continued deployment of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids across the city.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cited the president’s authority under Title 10, a federal statute that permits the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of rebellion or where federal laws cannot be executed effectively. The court emphasized its deference to the executive branch in matters of national security, signaling a victory for the Trump administration as it defends its controversial immigration enforcement policies.

Federal Authority vs. State Rights

At the heart of the dispute was the balance between federal authority and state rights. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had filed a lawsuit challenging the president’s decision to federalize the California National Guard, arguing it was an overreach of executive power. Newsom claimed the deployment escalated tensions in Los Angeles and that the president failed to consult with him, as required under Title 10.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” Newsom said in a statement following the court’s ruling. “This decision sets a dangerous precedent for the misuse of U.S. military forces against our own citizens.”

The Trump administration defended the deployment, asserting that the protests, which included clashes with immigration agents and threats to federal property, constituted a form of rebellion. In a June 7 memorandum, President Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to federalize the California Guard, a move that bypassed the governor’s consent.

A Rare Legal Battle

The case marks one of the rare instances where a president has federalized the National Guard without a state’s request. The last time this occurred was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators during the Selma voting rights marches.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Legal experts suggest the 9th Circuit’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with presidential decisions involving military powers.

“It’s incredibly unusual for courts to challenge a sitting president’s invocation of federal authority under Title 10,” said Samantha Takahashi, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. “The precedent here could have significant implications for federal-state relations, especially in politically divided regions like California.”

Community Impact and Reaction

Los Angeles has been at the center of heated debates over immigration policy, with demonstrations erupting across the city in recent weeks. Protesters have condemned the administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, which includes mass deportations and operations targeting sanctuary cities.

Sam Harbourt, a deputy solicitor general for California, argued during the 9th Circuit hearing that deploying troops heightened tensions and increased the risk of violence. “This is not a solution; it’s an escalation,” he said.

For many Angelinos, the presence of military personnel in the streets has been unsettling. Maria Gonzalez, a community activist in Boyle Heights, said the deployment has created an atmosphere of fear, particularly among undocumented residents.

“People are scared to leave their homes,” Gonzalez said. “This isn’t just about protests—it’s about how the government views immigrant communities as threats.”

However, supporters of the deployment argue it is necessary to maintain order and protect federal assets, such as immigration detention facilities. “These measures are about safety, not politics,” said Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer.

Broader Implications

The ruling also feeds into the ongoing national debate over the limits of executive power and the role of military forces in domestic affairs. Critics of the deployment point to the potential erosion of civil liberties and the precedent it sets for future administrations.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10