By admin President Donald Trump’s takeover and deployment of the California National Guard amid protests over his administration’s immigration crackdown last year was likely illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
Read more Sacramento City Unified says it mistakenly reported $1.8M in arts funds as unspent
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision that Trump lacked the authority to take control of the Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections. The judges found that protests in Los Angeles did not amount to a rebellion or the danger of one, as required under federal law.
“The order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung wrote for the panel’s majority, referring to Congress’ constitutional authority to call state militias into federal service.
The ruling, issued long after federalized Guard troops were removed from California streets, comes less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, amid concerns among some local officials that the administration might again deploy troops domestically.
The decision upheld a preliminary injunction rather than issuing a final judgment in the case. The Trump administration had sought to dismiss its appeal, but the court refused, saying a ruling could prevent similar deployments in the future.
With early voting underway in California, federal immigration agents recently gathered in the parking lot of a Yuba City veterans hall used as a polling place, according to Sen. Alex Padilla’s office and previous reporting by The Sacramento Bee.
The decision, the latest in more than a year of legal wrangling over Trump’s use of the Guard, was welcomed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said it would protect voters ahead of the midterms.
“Today’s rejection of Trump’s ‘rebellion’ claim is a critical safeguard ahead of next month’s elections,” Newsom said in a news release. “Donald Trump is on notice that the courts will swat down any false claims of emergencies and rebellions to militarize our communities, intimidate citizens, and engage in authoritarian tactics.”
Pushing back by filing lawsuits
California will continue to challenge what its Democratic leaders see as efforts to circumvent the law by the Republican president, Attorney General Rob Bonta said Friday. The state has filed 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration in just 90 weeks.
“Deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles with no rhyme or reason was a clear example of federal overreach, and it will not be tolerated,” Bonta said.
Read more Gavin Newsom grants clemency for 57, including 4 in Sacramento County gun crimes
In its ruling, the 9th Circuit rejected the federal government’s argument that the president’s authority to federalize the Guard was beyond judicial review.
The panel also relied in part on a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocked a similar deployment of the Illinois National Guard. The high court found that the administration had not demonstrated that the president was authorized to use regular military forces to execute federal laws or that those forces were unable to carry out the mission. The Supreme Court’s decision also informed a December order by the 9th Circuit that prevented the Trump administration from continuing its federalization of California Guard troops.
While federal law allows the president to federalize state National Guard troops in response to a rebellion or the danger of one, the conditions in Los Angeles did not meet that standard, the judges said.
Bad actors or an armed rebellion?
“’Rebellion’ means an open, organized, and armed renunciation of and resistance to the federal government that requires military intervention,” Sung, a Biden appointee, wrote in the majority’s opinion.
But the court found that the June 2025 protests in Los Angeles were responses to federal immigration enforcement, not part of an organized rebellion.
While some “bad actors” did engage in violent acts, there was no evidence of organized violence, and local law enforcement quickly brought the situation under control, the panel said, citing testimony and a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer earlier in the case.
The judges said the administration’s characterization of the protests as a rebellion, or a danger of rebellion, did not reflect a credible assessment of the facts “within a range of honest judgment.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion that he agreed with Sung’s analysis, and emphasized that he believed the panel did have the right to consider whether the call-up exceeded the president’s authority.
Another Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, said in a dissent that he did not agree with the panel’s decision to resolve the appeal, because the legal landscape was shifting quickly and the parties’ additional arguments after the Supreme Court’s Illinois decision had been “scant.”
Read more California’s ‘black box warning’ bill faces challenges from social media group
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.