Trump’s authority remains intact — at least for now…
In a last-minute ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has temporarily blocked a lower court order that would have handed control of California’s National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom by Friday at noon. The decision keeps the National Guard under federal command, allowing President Donald Trump to retain authority amid widespread protests in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement.
Background: The Clash Over Command
The conflict began after President Trump deployed roughly 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, citing civil unrest tied to ICE raids. Governor Newsom challenged the deployment, claiming it violated the 10th Amendment and exceeded federal authority under 10 U.S.C. § 252, which outlines when the federal government may assume control over state Guard units.
On June 12, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer — the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — sided with Newsom, issuing a temporary restraining order requiring federal forces to relinquish control back to California.
Appeals Panel Sides with White House — for Now
Late Thursday, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit responded with an administrative stay, freezing Judge Breyer’s order before it could take effect. The panel includes two judges appointed by President Trump and one appointed by President Biden. A full hearing on the case is scheduled for June 17.
The stay keeps federal command in place for at least several more days, preserving the Trump administration’s authority over the National Guard during a volatile period of public unrest.
What’s at Stake
At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional tug-of-war over who gets the final say in deploying military force within U.S. borders. While the president has broad powers under the Insurrection Act and related statutes, states also retain significant rights over their militias.
- State’s argument: California insists the deployment is an abuse of federal power and lacks the constitutional grounds required to override state sovereignty.
- Federal position: The Trump administration maintains that national security interests justify the move and that the president acted within his lawful authority.
Courthouse News Service has additional coverage on the ongoing legal debate:
Trump has defended the move by invoking Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows federal use of state National Guard when there is a “danger of rebellion” against the government.
“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” Trump said in a memo on June 7.
Newsom countered that the Los Angeles Police Department was more than capable of handling the protests and that tensions were subsiding until the president exacerbated the situation by deploying the military.
“The authority to use the military domestically for civil law enforcement is reserved for dire, narrow circumstances, none of which is present here,” Newsom said in his lawsuit.
Other Democrats have echoed Newsom’s concern, with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass going so far as to accuse Trump of using her city as a testing ground to push the limits of his presidential authority.
What Comes Next
The June 17 hearing will be pivotal. If the court upholds Judge Breyer’s order, control of the Guard could shift back to California — marking a rare judicial rebuke of presidential wartime powers. If the stay is upheld, it would cement the president’s legal footing in federalizing the Guard during domestic unrest.
For now, the Guard remains under Washington’s command, even as California leadership continues to push back.
READ NEXT: Explosions Rock Iran [VIDEO]
Very well written article.
Of note, flying a mexican flag while burning a USA flag by what appears to be a happy vindictive Mexican individual while rioting kind of indicates some sort of independence move by him. Is he an illegal alien let in by Biden”s open borders? He can be identified. I don’t think he will be that hard to find really! So, slick haired governor of CA, maybe you should be sure what your illegal aliens are saying about your state. They say it is a part of Mexico and they are reclaiming it if all the reporting is correct. And you negotiating like an independent nation with any other government as you have done opens up that can of worms for you.
I live and was brought up in the state of Arkansas. Let me remind Gov. Newsom and all his Democratic friends of what happened in the 1950’s in Arkansas. When had the issue of black children being allowed to attend previously all white schools. At first the governor of Arkansas, Mr. Fabius, brought out the Ark. National Guard and had them block black children from being able to enter the schools in Little Rock. Then President Eisenhower, federalized the Ark. National Guard, using title 10 authority and had the guards protect the black children so they could be allowed to go to public previously all white schools. That my Democratic friends is how the law works. In California the riots going on are far worse that what was happening in Little Rock some 8 decades ago. So any half wit ought to be able to see that in this case the President has every right to federalize the states Army National Guard.
The antifashiites told America they were putting on an insurrection back in ’20, apparently the gummit was not paying attention.
Throwing every leftist out of our country will put an end to all the violence.