President Trump’s deployment of 4,000 members of the California National Guard to the Los Angeles area last year was an unlawful abuse of his authority, according to a federal appeals court ruling on Friday.
The court’s 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in December, holding that Trump’s federalization of the Illinois National Guard was illegal.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, issued an immediate statement celebrating the court ruling against Trump, saying the president had no authority to intervene by using National Guard troops.
“Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution and defending democracy,” Newsom said. “Yet another court has issued a complete rejection of Donald Trump’s illegal, authoritarian takeover of our state’s National Guard.
“California fought back against this potential power grab and, in doing so, created essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans. California continues to stand as a first line of defense against Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”
Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised state budget during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Wednesday, May 14, 2025. (Photo/Rich Pedroncelli,File)
The U.S. Justice Department did not respond to Military.com’s request for comment. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued his own statement.
“Once again, the courts have rejected the Trump Administration’s attempts to circumvent the law for its own political agenda,” Bonta said. “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.
“When the president tramples on the Constitution and the rights of Californians, we’ll fight to hold him accountable—and we will win.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta declared victory involving a federal appeals court ruling that rejected President Trump’s use of the National Guard in the state last year. (California Department of Justice).
Evolving Legal Fight Over National Guard Troops
Confrontations broke out in June 2025 near a Home Depot in the heavily Latino city of Paramount, south of Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office nearby.
Agents unleashed tear gas, flash-bang explosives and pepper balls, while protesters hurled rocks and cement at Border Patrol vehicles. Smoke wafted from small piles of burning refuse in the streets.
Tensions were high after a series of sweeps by immigration authorities the previous day, including in LA’s fashion district, as the week-long tally of immigrant arrests in the city climbed past 100. A prominent union leader was arrested while protesting and accused of impeding law enforcement.
The White House announced that Trump would deploy the Guard to “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester,” which then triggered a series of legal battles culminating in Friday’s appeals court ruling.
Los Angeles, CA – June 09: The California National Guard holds a line in front of anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building on Monday, June 9, 2025 in Los Angeles, CA. (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Constitutional experts have been closely watching this case, with the midterm election less than two weeks away. There’s concern the president could deploy National Guard troops to polling locations.
The Trump Administration has said there are no plans to do so, but Trump has said in the past that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.
Trump’s ‘Rebellion’ Claim Rejected By Appeals Court
The ruling Friday in San Francisco rejected the president’s claim that there was a “rebellion” in Los Angeles that warranted federalizing the guard.
His administration was also quoted as saying that violent demonstrators in downtown Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesting the immigration crackdown, justified the president taking control of the Guard from Newsom.
President Donald Trump gestures after speaking at a campaign rally at Pitt–Greenville Airport, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, in Greenville, N.C. (AP Photo/Matt Ramey)
The court concluded that argument did not stand within a “range of honest judgment.”
Previously in the case, the 9th Circuit agreed with Trump, finding that the president acted within the law. However, the court disagreed with the administration’s argument that the president’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard should not be subject to judicial review.
The next legal stop was the appeals court, where the panel of judges weighed in and held that Trump did not meet legal requirements to deploy the guard to Los Angeles.
“Defendants have not made either of the required threshold showings here,” wrote Judge Jennifer Sung in the appeals court opinion. “Thus, they have not carried their burden.”
Sung was an appointee under former President Biden. Trump-nominated Judge Mark Bennett was the lone dissenter of the three-judge panel.