A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump acted within his legal authority when he ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to mass protests sparked by controversial ICE raids earlier this month. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allows federal control over California’s National Guard to remain in effect, overriding a lower court ruling and intensifying the legal and political standoff between the White House and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The court found that Trump’s invocation of Title 10 of the U.S. Code was likely lawful, even without the formal consent of state officials. The panel stated that the president holds broad constitutional powers to federalize the National Guard during times of national unrest or threats to federal property and personnel. The ruling halts an injunction previously granted by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had sided with Governor Newsom’s argument that Trump’s unilateral action violated the principles of federalism and the state’s right to control its own Guard units.
The deployment began on June 7, following days of escalating demonstrations in Los Angeles that started peacefully but turned violent in several neighborhoods. Protesters had gathered in response to a series of large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California, which targeted undocumented immigrants in what critics described as politically motivated operations. As tensions grew, instances of vandalism, arson, and clashes between protesters and law enforcement were reported in central Los Angeles and near ICE facilities.
The federal response included the deployment of approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines, under the direction of a joint task force headquartered at Camp Roberts. According to administration officials, the forces were assigned to secure federal buildings, assist with riot control, and support local law enforcement where requested. It is the first time since 1965 that Title 10 powers have been used to deploy federalized troops to Los Angeles in response to civil unrest.
Governor Newsom condemned the decision, calling it an abuse of executive power and a dangerous precedent. He argued that California was fully capable of managing the protests without federal intervention and that the military presence risked inflaming tensions further. In response, President Trump praised the ruling, stating that the deployment was necessary to “restore order and protect American citizens from violent mobs.” Trump has framed the protests as part of a broader breakdown in law and order and has consistently defended the role of federal forces in restoring stability.
Legal scholars note that while the president is permitted to invoke Title 10 in certain circumstances, domestic deployments of this nature raise complex constitutional questions, particularly under the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes. The appeals court noted that it was not ruling on the legality of every specific action taken by the Guard but affirmed that the president’s initial federalization of the troops was likely within his constitutional authority.
The case is expected to continue. Governor Newsom may petition for an en banc hearing before the full Ninth Circuit or escalate the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, federal troops remain on the ground in Los Angeles, though the scale of protests has decreased in recent days. City officials say they are closely monitoring the situation and remain in contact with both state and federal authorities.
This ruling has the potential to redefine the limits of presidential power in deploying military forces domestically and may set a precedent for future confrontations between state governments and the federal executive during times of internal unrest.
