Appeals Court Pauses Ruling on National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles

Tone & Political Bias: Center-Leaning

Why: Reporting relies on court documents, legal statutes, and statements from both parties, without inserting editorial opinions. Balanced citations from state and federal officials suggest minimal bias.

Federal Deployment Challenged, Then Temporarily Allowed

A federal judge ruled on June 12, 2025, that President Donald Trump acted beyond his constitutional powers by federalizing the California National Guard and deploying troops to Los Angeles. The deployment had been ordered in response to protests following new immigration enforcement actions.

The judge, Charles R. Breyer, stated the action violated the Tenth Amendment and did not meet legal standards under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. However, the ruling was temporarily blocked later the same day by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the Guard to remain under federal control pending a full hearing on June 17.

Key Legal Arguments

District Court Decision: The court found that Trump’s federalization of the Guard failed to satisfy legal criteria under 10 U.S.C. § 252, which requires evidence of rebellion or interference with federal operations. The deployment, the court said, bypassed required consultation with the state.
Constitutional Basis: The judge cited a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to states, arguing the federal action undermined state sovereignty.
Appeals Court Stay: A three-judge panel granted an emergency stay, allowing the federal deployment to continue temporarily. The panel includes two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, and scheduled expedited arguments for mid-June.

Political and Administrative Reactions

Trump Administration Response: The Justice Department quickly appealed Breyer’s ruling. Trump defended the deployment as lawful and necessary, stating on Truth Social, “We saved LA.” His administration cited authority under Title 10 to protect federal personnel and facilities.
Governor Newsom’s Response: California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration, calling the federal takeover of the National Guard “authoritarian.” Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the initial ruling as a defense of constitutional limits on federal power.
Local Leaders’ Statements: Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized the federal presence, stating it escalated tensions and urged ICE to cease operations in the city.

Broader Legal and Political Implications

Federal-State Power Struggles: The case tests the boundary between state sovereignty and federal intervention. Newsom’s legal team argued the President cannot unilaterally deploy the Guard without satisfying clear legal conditions.
Concerns Over Military in Civil Life: Legal experts and veterans groups warned about the precedent of using military forces for civil unrest without meeting strict criteria. The case touches on the Posse Comitatus Act and long-standing norms limiting military roles in domestic policing.
Divided Reactions Across States: Democratic governors across more than 20 states backed Newsom’s position, while several Republican governors supported Trump’s approach, framing it as essential for law and order.

What Comes Next

Next Court Hearing: The 9th Circuit will hold oral arguments on June 17 to determine if federal authority can stand or if control of the Guard must return to the state.
Legal Precedent: The outcome may establish a precedent on how the federal government can use National Guard forces in the future and under what circumstances the President can override state authority.
Policy Impact: The court’s final decision could influence future cases involving the Insurrection Act, Title 10 authority, and the military's role in civil enforcement actions.

Key Takeaway for Readers

This case raises urgent constitutional questions about presidential power, state autonomy, and the legal use of military force in civil matters. The June 17 decision will be closely watched as a defining moment for civil-military relations in the U.S.