![\"Federal](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/IMMIGRATION-PROTESTS-MILITARY-LA.jpg\" "\\"Federal")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Federal officers and National Guard troops stand outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles on June 10, 2025, amid protests over immigration raids. A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump likely acted illegally when he deployed California National Guard troops over Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s objections.<\/p>\n
Jason Armond<\/p>\n
Los Angeles Times via TNS<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump\u2019s takeover and deployment of the California National Guard amid protests over his administration\u2019s immigration crackdown last year was likely illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.<\/p>\n
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court\u2019s decision that Trump lacked the authority to take control of the Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s objections. The judges found that protests in Los Angeles did not amount to a rebellion or the danger of one, as required under federal law.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe order exceeded the President\u2019s statutory authority and encroached on Congress\u2019s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,\u201d U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung wrote for the panel\u2019s majority, referring to Congress\u2019 constitutional authority to call state militias into federal service.<\/p>\n
The ruling, issued long after federalized Guard troops were removed from California streets, comes less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, amid concerns among some local officials that the administration might again deploy troops domestically.<\/p>\n
The decision upheld a preliminary injunction rather than issuing a final judgment in the case. The Trump administration had sought to dismiss its appeal, but the court refused, saying a ruling could prevent similar deployments in the future.<\/p>\n
With early voting underway in California, federal immigration agents recently gathered in the parking lot of a Yuba City veterans hall used as a polling place<\/a>, according to Sen. Alex Padilla\u2019s office and previous reporting by The Sacramento Bee.<\/p>\n The decision, the latest in more than a year of legal wrangling<\/a> over Trump\u2019s use of the Guard, was welcomed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said it would protect voters ahead of the midterms.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s rejection of Trump\u2019s \u2018rebellion\u2019 claim is a critical safeguard ahead of next month\u2019s elections,\u201d Newsom said in a news release. \u201cDonald Trump is on notice that the courts will swat down any false claims of emergencies and rebellions to militarize our communities, intimidate citizens, and engage in authoritarian tactics.\u201d<\/p>\n Pushing back by filing lawsuits<\/p>\n California will continue to challenge what its Democratic leaders see as efforts to circumvent the law by the Republican president, Attorney General Rob Bonta said Friday. The state has filed 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration<\/a> in just 90 weeks.<\/p>\n \u201cDeploying the National Guard in Los Angeles with no rhyme or reason was a clear example of federal overreach, and it will not be tolerated,\u201d Bonta said.<\/p>\n In its ruling, the 9th Circuit rejected the federal government\u2019s argument that the president\u2019s authority to federalize the Guard was beyond judicial review.<\/p>\n The panel also relied in part on a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocked a similar deployment of the Illinois National Guard. The high court found that the administration had not demonstrated that the president was authorized to use regular military forces to execute federal laws or that those forces were unable to carry out the mission. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision also informed a December order by the 9th Circuit<\/a> that prevented the Trump administration from continuing its federalization of California Guard troops.<\/p>\n While federal law allows the president to federalize state National Guard troops in response to a rebellion or the danger of one, the conditions in Los Angeles did not meet that standard, the judges said.<\/p>\n Bad actors or an armed rebellion?<\/p>\n \u201c\u2019Rebellion\u2019 means an open, organized, and armed renunciation of and resistance to the federal government that requires military intervention,\u201d Sung, a Biden appointee, wrote in the majority\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n But the court found that the June 2025 protests in Los Angeles were responses to federal immigration enforcement, not part of an organized rebellion.<\/p>\n While some \u201cbad actors\u201d did engage in violent acts, there was no evidence of organized violence, and local law enforcement quickly brought the situation under control, the panel said, citing testimony and a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer earlier in the case.<\/p>\n The judges said the administration\u2019s characterization of the protests as a rebellion, or a danger of rebellion, did not reflect a credible assessment of the facts \u201cwithin a range of honest judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion that he agreed with Sung\u2019s analysis, and emphasized that he believed the panel did have the right to consider whether the call-up exceeded the president\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n Another Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, said in a dissent that he did not agree with the panel\u2019s decision to resolve the appeal, because the legal landscape was shifting quickly and the parties\u2019 additional arguments after the Supreme Court\u2019s Illinois decision had been \u201cscant.\u201d<\/p>\n The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.<\/p>\n Related Stories from Sacramento Bee<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/1792845863_945_Bernstein-photo.jpg\")