A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a decision by a lower court that ordered the Trump administration to return control of California’s National Guard troops back to the state. This legal battle stems from President Trump’s controversial deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, which he claimed was necessary to stop the city from “burning down” due to protests against his hardline immigration policies. The decision by the appeals court came just hours after a federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of the troops was illegal. The judge’s order was a victory for California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had argued that the federal government had overstepped its authority by sending troops to the state without his consent.
The conflict began when President Trump deployed approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to ongoing protests against his administration’s immigration crackdown. The troops were tasked with assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they conducted raids targeting individuals believed to be in the country illegally. Trump’s rationale for sending the National Guard was that the move would help restore order, especially after protests in Los Angeles had resulted in hundreds of arrests and the temporary closure of a major freeway.
Governor Newsom, along with other local officials, fiercely opposed the deployment. Newsom argued that the presence of military forces in a city already reeling from protests was an unnecessary provocation. He stressed that the deployment was a violation of California’s rights and could exacerbate tensions in an already volatile situation. On Thursday afternoon, Newsom took to social media to express his satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.”
The legal battle centers around the question of whether President Trump followed the law when ordering the deployment of National Guard troops without the approval of the state governor. Under normal circumstances, National Guard troops are typically under the authority of the state governor, who has the power to activate them for various purposes, such as responding to natural disasters or providing assistance in emergencies. However, the Trump administration invoked a provision in federal law that allows the president to take control of the National Guard in cases of “rebellion” or national emergencies.
In a hearing before the federal court, Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Trump’s actions were unlawful, asserting that Trump had violated the laws established by Congress regarding the deployment of National Guard troops. “He did not follow the law,” Judge Breyer wrote in his decision. “His actions were illegal… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.” However, the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal, which it did almost immediately.
The appeals court’s decision temporarily allowed the National Guard troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case continued through the legal process. The appeals court also scheduled a hearing for the following Tuesday to further consider the case and determine whether the troops should stay or return to the state’s control. This decision highlighted the complex legal questions surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops and the division of authority between state and federal governments, especially when it comes to the use of military forces for domestic purposes.
One of the central issues raised during the court hearings was whether President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to override the wishes of a state governor. The Trump administration argued that it had the right to deploy the National Guard without the approval of Governor Newsom, citing the president’s constitutional authority over the military. Attorney Brett Shumate, representing the Justice Department, told the court that Newsom did not need to be consulted when the order was issued. “Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it,” Shumate said, adding that there is “one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.” However, Judge Breyer strongly disagreed, arguing that the president does not have carte blanche authority over the National Guard.
“The president isn’t the commander-in-chief of the National Guard,” Breyer asserted, before referencing the U.S. Constitution. “We’re talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority,” he continued, holding up a booklet copy of the Constitution during the hearing. Breyer’s comments underscored the idea that the president’s powers are not absolute and that the Constitution places limits on his authority, especially when it comes to military matters on U.S. soil.
The legal debate over the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement situations is a contentious one, and this case has drawn attention to the tension between federal and state powers. Historically, it is rare for a president to deploy National Guard troops without the consent of a state governor. In fact, the last time this occurred was more than 50 years ago, during the Civil Rights era, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce desegregation in schools. It is far more common for governors to request federal assistance when they need additional support in responding to emergencies, such as natural disasters or civil unrest.
In this case, the Trump administration argued that the National Guard was necessary to restore order and protect federal law enforcement officers as they carried out immigration raids in Los Angeles. The administration’s justification was based on the idea that the protests, which had involved thousands of people and led to numerous arrests, amounted to a kind of rebellion that warranted federal intervention. But Governor Newsom and other local leaders rejected this argument, insisting that the protests were not an insurrection but rather a peaceful expression of dissent against the administration’s immigration policies.
California’s lawsuit emphasized that the protests in Los Angeles did not meet the threshold for “rebellion” as defined by federal law. “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection,” the lawsuit read, referring to the protests and the violence that occurred during the demonstrations. Instead, the protests were framed as a legitimate exercise of free speech, not an attempt to overthrow the government or incite violent rebellion.
In response to the legal challenges, the Trump administration continued to defend its actions, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressing his displeasure with the judicial intervention. “What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” Hegseth said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing, reiterating the administration’s stance that the use of military force was a necessary measure to protect national security and maintain order.
Despite the administration’s position, the court’s temporary block on the deployment underscored the ongoing legal battles over executive power and the role of the judiciary in checking the actions of the executive branch. The case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring national security and respecting state sovereignty, and it has raised important questions about the limits of presidential authority in domestic matters.
As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will be on the upcoming court hearing to determine the fate of the National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The decision could set an important precedent for the future use of military forces in domestic law enforcement situations and could have significant implications for the relationship between the federal government and state authorities. Whether the appeals court will uphold the lower court’s ruling or allow the Trump administration to retain control of the troops remains to be seen, but the case is likely to have lasting consequences for U.S. politics and the separation of powers within the government.
The post Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in California: A Legal Battle Over State and Federal Authority first appeared on Trusted and Verified USA News.
The post Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in California: A Legal Battle Over State and Federal Authority first appeared on Voxtrend News.
