Appeals Court Skeptical Of CA's Case In Battle Over Control Of National Guard

A federal appeals court in San Francisco heard arguments Tuesday over whether the Trump administration overstepped its authority by deploying California’s National Guard against the will of state and local leaders.

The legal battle between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals amid nationwide protests and a sweeping deportation push that has reignited long-standing tensions between California and the White House.

The three-judge panel — made up of two Trump appointees and one appointed by President Joe Biden — decided whether the federal government must return control of the Guard to Newsom after staying a lower court ruling in California's favor.

A ruling had been expected in writing on Tuesday afternoon.

The showdown stems from last week’s chaotic events in Los Angeles, where thousands took to the streets to protest immigration raids. Trump responded by deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the city — despite resistance from Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who both said local law enforcement could manage the isolated ncidents of unrest.

At the core of the dispute is the question of who holds ultimate authority over a state’s National Guard: the governor or the president.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Trump’s legal team argued that the president has broad and limitless power to deploy the Guard. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate claimed there is “no role for the court to play” in reviewing the decision.

“The statute couldn’t be any more clear,” Shumate said, referencing Title 10, which allows federalization of the Guard during invasion, rebellion, or when laws cannot otherwise be enforced.

Shumate also cited ongoing demonstrations in Los Angeles, where a curfew was lifted Tuesday, and emphasized that federal buildings and ICE agents remained under threat.

But California attorney Samuel Harbourt argued that the federal government failed to consult the governor before making the decision and did not consider less extreme alternatives.

“There’s World A, where ICE is enforcing the law as it prefers, and World B, where any obstacle results in the most extreme option — militarizing the situation,” Harbourt told the court.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer previously ruled that Trump’s use of Title 10 was improper, writing that “the protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.’”

“Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment,” Breyer wrote. “Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.”

Breyer, a Clinton appointee, said Trump bypassed the legal requirement that such orders must go through the state’s governor. He temporarily returned control of the Guard to Newsom last week, calling the president’s move “illegal.” But that order was quickly paused by the 9th Circuit while it reviewed the case.

The appeals court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of California’s arguments, with Judge Mark Bennett pressing the state on whether courts should even have the authority to second-guess the president’s national security decisions.

Still, Harbourt maintained that allowing Trump’s deployment to stand would “defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, and of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest.”

Although the three judges did not issue an official ruling Tuesday, their position was clear early on.

They cited legal precedents dating back to 1827, including the Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott, which held that the president has sole authority to deploy military forces in response to rebellion or unrest and that such a decision is “conclusive upon all other persons.”

Judge Lucy Koh Sung appeared skeptical of California’s argument. “If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,” she told the state’s attorney, Sam Harbourt, before pointing out that the nearly 200-year-old precedent “seemingly rejected the exact argument that you’re making.”

Sung went on to question Harbourt twice more and asked no questions of Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate.

The case has taken on symbolic weight in California, where critics say Trump is using the military as a political tool. Newsom has accused the former president of authoritarian overreach and inflaming tensions in an already divided nation.

“Our success today in court is a win for all Americans,” Newsom initially said after Breyer’s ruling. “The President’s action to turn the military against its own citizens threatened our democracy and moved us dangerously close to authoritarianism.”

Newsom’s remarks have only escalated in recent days. Over the weekend, he likened Trump to “failed dictators” and warned that the president’s actions were “terrifying.” In a public statement, he called on Trump to end “the unnecessary militarization of Los Angeles now.”

“This isn’t leadership,” Newsom said. “It’s a dangerous abuse of power.”

On social media, Trump fired back, portraying California leaders as weak and leftist radicals. “We must expand efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens in America’s largest cities,” he wrote Sunday. “Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are overrun.”

The fight is part of a broader clash over immigration, state rights, and executive authority. It has also drawn national attention after Sen. Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security press event and union leader David Huerta was arrested during a protest—incidents critics say mark a dangerous erosion of civil liberties.

Then, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested Tuesday by federal agents as he asked them for a judicial warrant for another arrest they were attempting to make. During the incident, Lander is seen holding onto the man federal agents were initially arresting.

“This is about an abuse of power,” California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks told Politico. “We see that in other parts of the world. We don’t see that here.”

Whether the court agrees will soon be known.

A separate hearing in the lower court is scheduled for Friday, where Judge Breyer will weigh whether to issue a broader injunction blocking the continued deployment of both the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles.