Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all.
The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops.
'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer.
'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added.
The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen.
Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.'
'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.'
Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review.
'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked.
Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence.
He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces.
Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute.
The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered.
Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers.
'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said.
California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not.
But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too.
'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller.
The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal.
And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court.
Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
The Israel-Iran conflict and the other big thing that drove the stock market this week
It's been a tense and dynamic week for the world at large. The market action on Wall Street over the past four sessions was been anything but that. For the week, the S & P 500 lost 0.15%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq ticked up 0.21%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was basically flat, up a mere 0.02%. Beneath the surface, though, there was plenty of news for investors to digest. Here's a closer look at the biggest market themes during the holiday-shortened trading week. 1. Geopolitics: The major news story was — and still is — the intensifying war between Israel and Iran. The big question on everyone's mind is whether the U.S. will get involved. As of Friday, reports indicate that while President Donald Trump is actively reviewing options to attack Iran, nothing has been authorized. The White House has said Trump he will make a decision in the "next two weeks". As a result of the Israel-Iran conflict, investors spent the week keeping an extra close eye on the movement in safe-haven assets like gold and the dollar, as well as risk assets such as oil. Gold prices pulled back this week after their initial spike last Friday, which is when Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure jolted markets. The U.S. dollar index , meanwhile, strengthened this week but still remains near multiyear lows. Oil rose again for the week, with international benchmark Brent crude climbing nearly 4%. For those looking to gauge what the market thinks will happen with Iran, look to oil. The commodity is currently acting as something of proxy on the odds of the conflict intensifying and America directly entering the fray. 2. Fed updates: The other big theme of the week centered on the health of the U.S. economy in the lead up to Wednesday afternoon, when we got the Federal Reserve's latest interest rate decision and revised economic projections. Ultimately, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged on Wednesday following its two-day policy meeting. The decision followed lackluster updates on the state of the consumer and the housing market , along with lower-than-expected inflation readings the week prior. As we outlined earlier this week , the Fed is in a tough spot when it comes to abiding by its dual mandate of ensuring price stability and low unemployment. The state of play requires nuance. On the one hand, there is evidence in support of rate cuts, namely some cracks in the consumer — even if the consumer has remained largely and impressively resilient — and the Fed's own updated outlook for lower real GDP growth and higher unemployment this year. On the other hand, the Fed is now expecting higher inflation this year than it did in March, which would support the need for higher interest rates. Given these dueling dynamics and the uncertainty around tariff impacts, the central bank's decision to keep interest rates steady makes sense. While the Fed certainly doesn't want to wait too long and make the same mistake we saw coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, we must acknowledge that the causes of a potential rebound in inflation are different this time around. Tariffs will likely push up prices, but that may be a one-time increase, as opposed to the sustained inflation we saw exiting the pandemic, which was driven by massive supply chain disruptions and shifts in consumer behavior. As a result, we believe the apparent bias to be more worried about the job market and overall economic growth — and therefore cut rates later this year — makes sense, too. Indeed, the Fed's updated projections still pencil in two rate cuts in 2025, the same as in March despite the aforementioned revisions to its inflation and growth outlook. Fed Governor Christopher Waller made the case Friday that the cuts should start as early as July, arguing that the inflation risk posed by tariffs is not significant and ensuring resiliency in the labor market should be a higher priority. Waller's argument is basically that it's better to move now than wait for a jump in unemployment. Our biggest focus at the Club is staying nimble, given the highly volatile nature of geopolitics at the moment. No doubt, rate decisions are important to think about, but they're only one small part of the investing puzzle to navigate each day. For this reason, we continue to focus more on individual company fundamentals and industry trends rather than higher-level dynamics, important as they are to shaping our worldview. Cybersecurity stocks are one example that we highlighted this week. Another example would be the news we got from Club names Meta Platforms and Amazon this week on their artificial intelligence efforts. We think the implications that AI will have on the cost structures, revenue opportunities and efficiency gains should weigh far more heavily in the minds' of long-term investors than whether the Fed will cut in July or September. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
B-2 bombers head across the Pacific and Trump is scheduled to return to the White House as he considers strike on Iran.
Multiple U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers appeared to be airborne and heading west from the United States across the Pacific, and President Trump is scheduled to return to the White House late on Saturday afternoon from New Jersey as he deliberates about whether to join Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Air traffic control communications indicated that several B-2 aircraft — the planes that could be equipped to carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that Mr. Trump is considering deploying against Iran's underground nuclear facilities in Fordo — had taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Some flight trackers said on social media that the destination of the aircraft is Guam, the U.S. territory, which has several military installations, although that could not be independently confirmed. The bombers appeared to be accompanied by refueling tankers for portions of the journey, the flight tracking data showed. Moving planes does not mean a final decision has been made about whether to strike. It is not unusual to shift military assets into position to provide options to the president and military commanders even if they are not ultimately deployed. The White House schedule for the weekend said that Mr. Trump would return from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and would meet with his national security team at 6 p.m. on Saturday and again on Sunday. Mr. Trump typically spends both weekend days out of town at one of his properties. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Trump has made clear he is weighing whether to have the U.S. join Israel's effort to curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, a line he has drawn repeatedly over the years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds of Voice of America reporters fired as Trump guts agency
Hundreds of journalists for Voice of America (VOA) - most of its remaining staff - have been fired by President Donald Trump's administration, effectively shutting down the US-funded news outlet. The Trump administration, which has long accused VOA of left-wing bias, said the layoffs were because the agency was "riddled with dysfunction, bias and waste". Steve Herman, VOA's chief national correspondent, called the dismantling of the outlet, which was set up during World War Two to counter Nazi propaganda, a "historic act of self-sabotage". Among those axed were Persian-language reporters who had been on administrative leave, but were called back to work last week after Israel attacked Iran. According to the Associated Press news agency, the Persian reporters had left the office on Friday for a cigarette break, and were not allowed to re-enter the building after the termination notices went out. "Today, we took decisive action to effectuate President Trump's agenda to shrink the out-of-control federal bureaucracy," Kari Lake, whom the president appointed to run VOA, said in a statement on Friday announcing the layoffs of 639 employees. In total, more than 85% of the agency's employees - about 1,400 staff - have lost their jobs since March. She noted that 50 employees would remain employed across VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and VOA's parent company, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). A statement issued by three VOA journalists who have been suing to stop the elimination of the network said about the latest firings: "It spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds US ideals of democracy and freedom around the world." The move had been expected since March when Trump ordered VOA, as well as USAGM, which oversees VOA and funds outlets such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, to be "eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law". The agencies have won acclaim and international recognition for their reporting in places where press freedom is severely curtailed or non-existent, from China and Cambodia to Russia and North Korea. But Dan Robinson, a former VOA news correspondent, wrote in an op-ed last year that the outlet had become a "hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting a leftist bias aligned with partisan national media". Trump's criticisms of VOA come as part of his broader attacks against the US media, which studies suggest American news consumers view as highly polarised. The president has also urged his fellow Republicans to remove federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 'Discarded like a dirty rag': Chinese state media hails Trump's cuts to Voice of America Judge halts Trump's shutdown of Voice of America
