California Governor Gavin Newsom Disputes Trump’s Authority In Guard Ruling
- The New York Editorial Desk - Arif
- 4 days ago
- 3 min read
Tone & Political Bias: Weakly Right-Leaning
Why: The reporting focuses on Trump’s legal victory but highlights criticism from a Democratic governor, using neutral, straightforward language without overt opinion.
Federal Appeals Court Sides With Trump
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled on June 19, 2025, that President Donald Trump may continue controlling California’s National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles. The decision temporarily stays a lower-court ruling that had ordered Trump to relinquish guard authority to Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump federalized approximately 4,000 troops and 700 U.S. Marines in response to protests sparked by ICE operations.
Legal Reasoning Supports Presidential Discretion
The appeals court cited federal statutes allowing presidential control of National Guard units when “sufficient evidence of violence or damage to federal property” exists. Two judges appointed by Trump and one by Biden found it “likely” he acted within his authority. The court also held that Trump cannot override judicial review, rejecting his claim of unfettered unilateral power.
Newsom Labels Trump “Not A King”
Governor Newsom, joined by Attorney General Rob Bonta, praised the court’s reminder that presidents are subject to legal checks. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Newsom emphasized: “Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” framing it as a “critical check on presidential overreach.”
However, he also expressed disappointment that the decision did not fully curb Trump’s use of military authority, pledging to continue challenging what he called “authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”
Ongoing Court Fight On Deployment Legality
The legal battle began when Newsom filed suit on June 9, 2025, in Newsom v. Trump, arguing the deployment violated criteria under Title 10, the Tenth Amendment, and the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military enforcement of civilian law.
On June 12, Judge Charles Breyer sided with the state, ordering the troops returned—but his ruling was paused pending the Ninth Circuit review. The appeals court did not resolve all questions, noting some issues—such as troop engagement in law enforcement—could be subject to further legal challenge.
Context: Protests And Guard Deployment
The troop deployment followed immigration-raid protests in early June that escalated in Los Angeles, prompting federal intervention to protect ICE agents and federal property. National Guard officials and local police noted that most protests were peaceful, with isolated incidents becoming the focus of federal action. Newsom called the move “purposefully inflammatory” and warned it could raise tensions further.
Stakes For Federal-State Authority
This case raises significant questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments. California maintains the state’s National Guard was sufficient to handle the situation, underscoring concerns about potential federal overreach in domestic affairs.
Experts note that the Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering principles are central to the dispute. Legal observers say the upcoming proceedings could define whether presidents can deploy state guards without governors’ consent for domestic law enforcement—a constitutional gray area.
What’s Next In Court
Further proceedings in Newsom v. Trump are expected to address whether the deployment violated military law and civil-law boundaries. Newsom’s team aims to halt troop participation in domestic enforcement roles. Trump’s legal team insists the president acted within clear statutory limits. A full court ruling is likely in the coming weeks.
Why It Matters
Legal Precedent: Could establish limits on presidential authority over state forces during domestic unrest.
Political Optics: Highlights tensions between progressive state leadership and conservative federal power.
Public Safety Vs. Civil Liberty: Balances restoring order against risks of militarization.
Comentarios