Ninth Circuit Rules 2-1 That Trump Likely Exceeded His Authority in Federalizing California Guard for 2025 Los Angeles Deployment
A divided appeals panel upheld an order returning the Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom and applied the Supreme Court's December 2025 interim ruling in the Chicago Guard case, after refusing the Justice Department's request to drop the appeal.
A ruling about a deployment that had already ended
On Friday, October 23, 2026, a federal appeals court ruled 2-1 against President Donald Trump. The case was about his June 2025 order taking control of about 4,000 California National Guard members and sending them to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids [1][2]. But that deployment was long over. A judge had ordered it ended in December 2025 [19][20].
So why did the court rule at all? The Justice Department had asked to drop its own appeal. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit refused. It then upheld the lower-court order that returned the Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom [3][4].
The case is Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727, decided in San Francisco. Judge Jennifer Sung wrote the opinion. Judge Eric Miller concurred, and Judge Mark Bennett dissented [1][3]. Miller and Bennett were both appointed by Trump [13][7].
What the law lets a president do
The fight turns on one federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. It lets a president take command of a state's Guard in three situations. One is an invasion. Another is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The third is when the president can't carry out federal law with the "regular forces" [2][4].
The administration said violent protests against immigration agents met that bar. It said federal officers and buildings were under attack in Los Angeles and that local leaders wouldn't protect them [9][2]. The majority disagreed. It held that calling Los Angeles on June 7, 2025 a rebellion was not "a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment" [4][1].
The majority also drew on a Supreme Court order from December 2025, Trump v. Illinois. That order read "regular forces" to mean the regular military, not civilian agents [2][1]. It came on the Court's emergency docket. The Court declined, for now, to let a Chicago-area deployment go ahead. It was not a final ruling on the merits [2][1].
One more point about the ruling. The majority also found that the order encroached on Congress's power to call forth the militia. It held that the Guard stayed state personnel under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to states the powers not given to the federal government [1].
Why the court kept a finished case alive
The Justice Department argued there was nothing left to decide. The deployment was over, and the government wanted out [7][18]. The panel pointed to what Trump said when the Guard was withdrawn: "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form" [7][18]. The judges treated that as a reason to settle the law before any return, and to avoid manipulation of precedent [18].
Judge Bennett saw it differently. He said the court shouldn't have reached "the difficult and important questions" in this unusual posture. He wanted it to wait for a final judgment and full briefing on what Trump v. Illinois means. He said the majority was "relying primarily on outdated briefs prepared amid a shifting legal landscape" [7].
He also split the legal theories. In his view, the Calling Forth Clause gives Congress the power over calling up the militia. So breaking § 12406 would be a statutory violation, not a Tenth Amendment one [7][4]. Right-leaning commentators made a similar point about the court ruling on a case the government had tried to end [9].
The administration adds a deference argument. Under long precedent, courts give the commander in chief wide room to judge when an emergency exists. Judges reviewing the record months later, it says, shouldn't second-guess that call [3][7].
What each side stands to gain
For California, the prize is precedent, not remedy. Newsom called the ruling "a crucial day for the rule of law" and "essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans" [5][6]. California's argument is simple. If a president can declare a "rebellion" over street protests, he can seize any governor's troops at will [6][8].
Any governor, of either party, has an interest in keeping control of the state's own forces. Newsom is also a leading national Democrat, and fighting Trump in court raises his profile [6][18].
The administration's interest runs the other way. It wants to keep the option of using the Guard in cities with high-profile immigration enforcement. Failing that, it wants to avoid a binding precedent that limits the option [18][7]. Because the panel ruled, its reading now binds federal courts in the Ninth Circuit's nine Western states [18][2]. No White House response turned up in the coverage reviewed.
Same ruling, different headlines
Coverage split by emphasis. Center-left and California outlets led with "unlawful." The San Francisco Chronicle put the Trump-appointed judge in its headline, a detail that signals the result wasn't purely partisan [13]. The Hill and Military.com also used "unlawful" or "illegal" [2][5].
Those words skip a qualifier. This was a preliminary-injunction ruling, an early-stage order. The opinion speaks of what California is "likely" to prove [1][3]. Newsom's office went further and called it a "final decision" [6].
Right-leaning outlets put the procedure first. RedState stressed that the court ruled "after refusing to let DOJ drop appeal" [9]. NTD framed it as rejecting the claim that the Guard was "needed" [10]. That turns a legal test about rebellion into a question of necessity.
Overseas coverage was thin. A UK legal-news brief and a Ukrainian outlet relaying The Hill were what turned up [14][15]. Al Jazeera had covered the earlier phases [16][17].
Two mix-ups are worth avoiding. The Illinois order was interim, not a final holding. And the separate Posse Comitatus ruling, on whether troops may act as police, came from a September 2025 trial decision and wasn't the basis of this one [16].
What happens next
No federalized California Guard troops are in Los Angeles under this order [4][19]. The president can still seek a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court review. No such filing had been found as of October 27 [7]. Bennett's dissent reads as a roadmap for either request.
The Supreme Court may yet speak more fully. Its Illinois order was interim, and both sides know it [2][1]. The president also keeps other tools, such as the Insurrection Act, which this ruling didn't decide [7][2].
Summary
On Friday, October 23, 2026, a federal appeals court ruled 2-1 against President Donald Trump. The case was about his June 2025 decision to take control of about 4,000 California National Guard members and send them to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids [1][2]. The panel is part of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It upheld a lower-court order that blocked the deployment and handed control of the Guard back to Gov. Gavin Newsom [3][4]. Two of the three judges were appointed by Trump. One joined the majority and the other dissented [13][7].
The ruling turns on one federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. It lets a president take command of a state's Guard in three situations. One is an invasion. Another is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion.' The third is when the president cannot carry out federal law with the 'regular forces' [2][4]. The administration said violent protests against immigration agents met that bar [9][2]. The majority disagreed. It said calling Los Angeles on June 7, 2025 a rebellion was not 'a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment' [4][1]. It also held that the order encroached on Congress's power to call forth the militia and on the state's authority under the Tenth Amendment [1]. It leaned on a December 2025 Supreme Court order in the Illinois Guard case, Trump v. Illinois. That order read the 'regular forces' clause to mean the regular military, not civilian agents [2][1]. The Supreme Court issued it on its emergency docket. It refused to let the Chicago deployment go ahead while the case continued. It was not a final ruling on the merits [2][1].
The biggest dispute is less about Los Angeles in 2025 than about the future. The Justice Department had asked to drop its own appeal. The panel refused. It pointed to Trump's statement, when the Guard was withdrawn, that 'We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form' [7][18]. Because the panel ruled anyway, its decision now binds federal courts across the Ninth Circuit's Western states [18][2]. Newsom calls that 'essential legal precedent' protecting all Americans [5][6]. Critics on the right, and the dissenting judge, say the court decided hard questions it did not need to reach [7][9]. Note on how this story is often framed: several headlines say the court ruled Trump 'violated' the law. But this is a preliminary-injunction ruling, so the opinion speaks of what California is 'likely' to prove [1][3]. The separate Posse Comitatus question, which asks whether troops may act as police, came from a different September 2025 trial ruling. It was not the basis of this decision [16].
The Event
On October 23, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel in San Francisco ruled 2-1 in Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 [3][1]. It affirmed U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 2025 order. That order barred deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and returned control of the Guard to Gov. Newsom [4]. Judge Jennifer Sung wrote the opinion, Judge Eric Miller concurred, and Judge Mark Bennett dissented [1]. The panel had first refused a Justice Department request to dismiss the government's own appeal [7][18].
Undisputed Facts
- In June 2025, Trump federalized about 4,000 California National Guard members and sent them to the Los Angeles area during protests against immigration enforcement [2][1].
- The Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 on October 23, 2026. Judge Sung wrote the majority opinion, Judge Miller concurred, and Judge Bennett dissented [1][3].
- Judges Miller and Bennett were appointed by Trump [13][7].
- The panel affirmed a preliminary injunction, meaning an early-stage order. It found California likely to prove that the federalization was not authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the separation of powers [2][1].
- In December 2025, in Trump v. Illinois, the Supreme Court declined on an interim basis to let Trump deploy federalized Guard troops in the Chicago area. It read § 12406's 'regular forces' clause to refer to the regular military [2][1].
- The Justice Department asked to drop its appeal. The panel refused, citing Trump's statement that the Guard would 'come back' in a 'stronger form' [7][18].
- In December 2025, Judge Breyer separately ordered the Los Angeles Guard deployment to end [19][20].
- In September 2025, Breyer ruled in a separate part of the case that the use of troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act [16].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Who controls state troops
- The Guard serves two masters. Governors command it day to day. Congress, through § 12406, lets the president take it over only in set emergencies. Each ruling moves that line, and each side is fighting over where it sits for the next deployment, not the last one [4][2].
- Precedent over remedy
- The Los Angeles deployment had already been ordered ended in December 2025 [19]. So the practical prize in this ruling is precedent. That is why the government tried to drop the appeal and why the panel refused [7][18].
- Supreme Court as final arbiter
- The Supreme Court's December 2025 Illinois order was interim, not a final merits decision. Both sides know the Court may yet speak more fully. Any Ninth Circuit ruling is a stage in that larger fight [2][1].
Material realityNo federalized California Guard troops are in Los Angeles under this order, and the ruling returned control to the governor [4][19]. Two legal readings now bind federal courts in the Western states. First, protests like those in Los Angeles in June 2025 do not count as 'rebellion' under § 12406. Second, following the Supreme Court's interim reading, the 'regular forces' clause refers to the military [2][1]. The president can still seek rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court review. He also keeps other legal tools, such as the Insurrection Act, which this ruling did not decide [7][2].
Narrative as a weaponNewsom's office is the most active shaper of this story. It calls the ruling the 'final decision' and the precedent a shield for 'all Americans,' while the opinion itself speaks of likely success at an early stage [6][1]. Right-leaning outlets shift the focus to judicial overreach. They stress that the panel ruled on a case the government tried to drop, which makes the result look like activism more than a finding about Los Angeles [9]. The White House has been largely silent in the coverage found, so the administration's case reaches readers mostly through its court filings and earlier statements [2][11]. Readers should watch for two common framing slips. One is calling the Supreme Court's interim Illinois order a final 'holding.' The other is mixing up this statutory ruling with the separate Posse Comitatus ruling from September 2025 [1][16].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asCalifornia says the Guard belongs to the state unless Congress's narrow conditions are truly met. Letting a president declare a 'rebellion' over street protests would let him seize any governor's troops whenever he likes [6][8]. Newsom calls the ruling 'a crucial day for the rule of law' and 'essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans' [5][6]. The state also argues that federal overreach on the Guard violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states powers not given to the federal government. The majority accepted this argument [1][7].
WhyTo lock in binding precedent against future federal deployments in California. Newsom is also a leading national Democratic figure, and fighting Trump in court raises his profile [6][18].
Impact on themThe state regains clear control of its Guard. It also gets a binding appellate precedent across the Ninth Circuit if Trump tries again [18][2].
Frames it asThe administration says federal immigration officers and buildings were under violent attack in Los Angeles. Local leaders, it says, would not protect them, and the president has a duty to protect federal functions [9][2]. Under a long line of precedent, courts give the commander in chief wide deference on when an emergency exists. Judges reviewing the record months later should not second-guess that call [3][7]. Because the deployment is over and the government tried to drop the appeal, it argues the court had no live dispute to decide [7][18].
WhyTo keep presidential power to use the Guard in cities with high-profile immigration enforcement. Failing that, to avoid a binding precedent that limits it [18][7].
Impact on themA binding Ninth Circuit ruling now narrows § 12406 for nine Western states. It sits on top of the Supreme Court's interim reading in the Illinois case [18][2]. No White House response to the ruling was found in the coverage reviewed.
Frames it asBennett said the court should not have reached 'the difficult and important questions' while the case was in this unusual posture. It should wait for a final judgment and full briefing on what Trump v. Illinois means. He said the majority was 'relying primarily on outdated briefs prepared amid a shifting legal landscape' [7]. On the Constitution, he argued that the Calling Forth Clause gives Congress the power over calling up the militia. So a breach of § 12406 is a statutory violation, not a Tenth Amendment one [7][4]. Right-leaning commentators made a similar point: the court ruled on a case the government had tried to end [9].
WhyTo keep courts from deciding constitutional questions they do not have to decide, and to keep statutory and constitutional claims separate [7].
Impact on themThe dissent offers a roadmap for any request for rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or for Supreme Court review. No such filing was found as of October 27 [7].
Frames it asThe majority said § 12406 sets real limits that courts can enforce. Deference to the president is not unlimited when the facts cannot support a 'rebellion,' defined as a violent, armed, organized, open uprising against the government as a whole [4][1]. It applied the Supreme Court's December reading that the 'regular forces' clause refers to the military. That means a president cannot use the Guard simply because civilian agents are stretched thin [2][1]. It kept the case alive because Trump had said the Guard would come back, and to avoid manipulation of precedent [18].
WhyTo settle the law in the circuit before any new deployment, rather than case by case under emergency time pressure [18].
Impact on themFuture Ninth Circuit panels are now bound by the ruling [2].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UA.News | Ukrainian (private, re-reporting U.S. coverage) | 2 | US court rules Trump's California National Guard deployment unlawful | A straight relay of The Hill's account with no added angle. It shows how thin overseas coverage was. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles was unlawful, 9th Circuit rules | Drops the 'likely' qualifier that comes with a preliminary-injunction ruling. Otherwise factual and attributed. |
| Military.com | U.S. center (military-community news) | 3 | Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's Use of 4,000 National Guard Troops in California | Puts the troop count up front and frames the story as a legal question for service members. Its syndicated text says 'illegal' with no 'likely.' |
| Reason | U.S. libertarian (Volokh Conspiracy legal blog) | 4 | Ninth Circuit Rules Trump Illegally Federalized National Guard in Los Angeles | A signed legal-analysis post that endorses the result from a limits-on-executive-power view. It works through the opinion's reasoning closely. |
| NTD | U.S. right (Epoch Media Group affiliate) | 4 | Appeals Court Rejects Trump Admin's Claim National Guard Needed in Los Angeles in 2025 | 'Needed' turns a legal test (rebellion under § 12406) into a policy-necessity question. It also stresses that the events were in the past. |
| San Francisco Chronicle | U.S. center-left (regional) | 4 | Appeals court, including Trump appointed judge, sides against him in takeover of California National Guard | Puts the Trump appointee in the majority front and center to signal a non-partisan result. 'Takeover' is the state's preferred word. |
| RedState | U.S. right | 6 | 9th Circuit Deals Trump Major National Guard Defeat — After Refusing to Let DOJ Drop Appeal | Leads with the court's refusal to dismiss, which suggests the panel reached out to rule. Uses 'deals' and 'major defeat' as framing words. |
References
- Ninth Circuit Rules Trump Illegally Federalized National Guard in Los Angeles — Reason (Volokh Conspiracy) · Libertarian legal blog; Reason Foundation, donor-funded
- Trump's National Guard Deployment in California Illegal, Federal Appeals Court Rules — Military.com · Commercial military-community news site; center
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 (opinion, Oct. 23, 2026) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Primary source; federal court record
- Newsom v. Trump: The Ninth Circuit Rules on the Guard — Substack (ashtalks) · Independent legal commentary newsletter; individual author
- Trump's National Guard deployment to LA was unlawful, court rules — Yahoo News (syndicated) · Aggregator carrying mainstream wire/newspaper copy
- Governor Newsom on court's final decision holding President Trump accountable for illegal federalization of the California National Guard — Office of the Governor of California · Primary source; Democratic governor and a party to the case
- Trump Tried to Drop His Appeal. The Ninth Circuit Ruled Anyway. — World of Payne · Independent legal/political blog
- Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Ninth Circuit Ruling Upholding Order Against President Trump's Unlawful and Unconstitutional Federalization of California National Guard — California Department of Justice · Primary source; Democratic state AG and a party to the case
- 9th Circuit Deals Trump Major National Guard Defeat — After Refusing to Let DOJ Drop Appeal — RedState · U.S. conservative opinion/news site (Townhall Media)
- Appeals Court Rejects Trump Admin's Claim National Guard Needed in Los Angeles in 2025 — NTD · U.S. right; Epoch Media Group affiliate
- Court rules Trump can maintain National Guard despite Newsom's objection — Fox News · U.S. right-leaning cable network
- Trump's National Guard deployment to LA was unlawful, court rules — FOX 11 Los Angeles · Fox-owned local TV station; local news
- Appeals court, including Trump appointed judge, sides against him in takeover of California National Guard — San Francisco Chronicle · U.S. center-left regional newspaper (Hearst)
- Ninth Circuit upholds order returning California National Guard to state control — Law News · UK legal-industry news site
- US court rules Trump's California National Guard deployment unlawful — UA.News · Ukrainian private news site
- US judge declares Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles illegal — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded broadcaster
- US appeals court rules Trump can keep control of California National Guard — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded broadcaster
- Ninth Circuit Rules for Newsom in California Guard Case — Hoodline · Local news aggregator; center
- Federal judge orders Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles to end — CNN · U.S. center-left cable network
- Judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment in LA with sharp rebuke — NPR · U.S. public radio; center-left audience, partly publicly funded