Trump can continue control of California's National Guard, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court is allowing President Donald Trump to continue having control of thousands of members of California's National Guard.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request from Trump to lift, for now, a lower-court ruling that had required the president to relinquish control of roughly 4,000 guardsman from the Golden State that he had federalized to beef up security in Los Angeles amid unrest over immigration enforcement.
The court said in an unsigned ruling 'that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' under the federal law he invoked to federalize the guardsmen earlier this month, rejecting arguments pushed by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom that Trump had violated federal law when he seized control of part of his state's militia.
Last week, US District Judge Charles Breyer directed the president to relinquish control of the guardsmen after concluding that Trump had violated several provisions of the law he leaned on in order to take control of the troops, including one that requires presidents to issue an order 'through the governor' when they want to federalize state troops.
The appeals court briefly put Breyer's ruling on hold shortly after it was issued, and Thursday's ruling from the 9th Circuit extends that pause while the legal challenge plays out. California has the option of asking the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Melania shows President Trump the contempt he deserves. What's her secret?
I want to know: What is Melania Trump's secret? The first lady seems to be the only one who can do anything she wants regarding President Donald Trump and suffer no ill will from him. She comes and goes out of Trump's life on her own schedule most of the time – and she shows complete and total disdain for the president when she is with him. She attended the disaster of a military parade with Trump June 14 looking as bored as one could possibly look – and then skipped the G7 conference, leaving him wandering around looking like a lost puppy. Most spouses of other heads of state attended. Others who have embarrassed the president publicly this way have disappeared, never to be seen again. What power does she hold over him? If she could bottle it, she could make millions. Felton Marans, Lakewood Ranch This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Melania shows President Trump little respect. Good for her. | Letter
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Anti-Trump Protests Update: 'National Day of Action' Planned for July 17
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Another round of national anti-Trump demonstrations is being planned across the U.S. for July 17 under the banner of Good Trouble Lives On, a reference to the late civil rights icon, Congressman John Lewis. Newsweek contacted Good Trouble Lives On for comment via email on Friday outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters On June 14,anti-Trump "No Kings" protests took place in cities across the United States on Trump's 79th birthday, which also saw the president attend a military parade in Washington D.C. to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. The protests took place in hundreds of U.S. cities, with large-scale gatherings reported in major hubs such as Philadelphia; Los Angeles; Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and New York. According to analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris, they were attended by an estimated 4 to 6 million people. What To Know Good Trouble Lives On demonstrations are being planned for dozens of American cities on July 17 including the likes of New York, Washington D.C, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco with attendees invited to "March in Peace, Act in Power." The name is a reference to Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and an advocate of peaceful protests, who famously called for "good trouble" during the civil rights era. Anti-Trump "No Kings" demonstrators pictured in Los Angeles on June 14. Anti-Trump "No Kings" demonstrators pictured in Los Angeles on June 14. Jay L Clendenin/GETTY According to its downloadable "Host Toolkit" for organizers, the protests have three main goals. These are demanding an end to "the extreme crackdown on civil rights by the Trump administration," "the attacks on Black and brown Americans, immigrants, trans people, and other communities," and "the slashing of programs that working people rely on, including Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security." Good Trouble Lives On is being supported by a range of other groups including the 50501 Movement, which also helped organize the "No Kings" demonstrations. The 50501 Movement, short for "50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement" was formed in January 2025 to protest Trump and has been involved in organizing a series of national demonstrations beginning on February 5. A series of "No Kings on Presidents Day" rallies took place on February 17 followed by "Hands Off" demonstrations in April and May criticizing federal layoffs and immigration crackdowns. What People Are Saying Speaking to Newsweek, Lorella Praeli, co-president of Community Change Action, which has backed anti-Trump demonstrations, said: "Look around—Trump and his allies are deploying the tools of authoritarianism: silencing dissent, targeting immigrants, punishing oversight, and even staging military displays for personal glorification. These aren't isolated incidents; they're part of a broader effort to delegitimize democratic norms." On its website, Good Trouble Lives On, which "is a national day of action to respond to the attacks on our civil and human rights by the Trump administration," wrote: "We are facing the most brazen rollback of civil rights in generations. Whether you're outraged by attacks on voting rights, the gutting of essential services, disappearance of our neighbors, or the assault on free speech and our right to protest—this movement is for you. "Trump is trying to divide us but we know the power of coming together." What Happens Next It remains to be seen how many people will turn out for the "Good Trouble Lives On" demonstrations and what the organizers plan next.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ex-mayor, councilman sue to overturn CT town's controversial $117M budget referendum
The political atmosphere in Bloomfield grew even more contentious Wednesday when a former mayor and a former town councilman sued to reverse the controversial $117 million budget referendum. The lawsuit accuses Mayor Danielle Wong's administration of conducting a 'substantially false and misleading' referendum. It argues that the correct budget proposal was $113 million — but was bumped up to $117 million at the last minute only because Wong and her town council majority added $4 million that should've been sent to a separate public vote. The lawsuit by former Mayor Sydney Schulman, a Democrat, and former council member Rickford Kirton is the latest instance of an uncommonly public rift within the town's dominant political party. Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, another former Democratic mayor, had been clashing with Wong and her supporters long before the latest controversy. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — including resident Lucy Hurston — are asking a Superior Court judge to declare the May 28 referendum invalid. They want the court to order a new referendum with two parts: One vote on the $113 million operations budget and a second on the $4 million fund appropriated for economic development. Republican Councilman Shamar Mahon has argued for two months that the council — including his two GOP colleagues — was wrong when it added those two together. 'The residents have been cheated out of a referendum vote due to the sudden change between the $113 million that was initially approved during our annual town meeting and the $117 million that came up when we voted to move forward with setting the referendum question,' Mahon told the council at its June 9 meeting. Mahon contended that the council endorsed a $113 million budget in mid-May, and then later added in $4 million for economic development. He complained that when he objected, the town attorney took several days to give an opinion saying the $4 million could be part of the overall budget vote. Critics have complained that the maneuver was a way for the council to work around a charter requirement that requires appropriations of more than 1.5% of the budget to be a separate referendum question. As has happened frequently this year, Wong and Mahon clashed during the June 9 discussion. She'd previously announced a two-minute time limit on his remarks, and then interrupted him mid-sentence to announce that another councilor now had the floor. Mahon and Wong talked over each other for the next 30 seconds, with Mahon insisting she'd cut him off too early and Wong demanding he stop. The meeting devolved into a raucous discussion between councilmen about whether to simply adjourn. Even though Mahon helped the petition drive to force a referendum on the budget, the lawsuit names him as a defendant along with each of the other council members, Wong and the town itself. Town Manager Alvin Schwapp Jr. and the town clerk are also listed as defendants. Bloomfield-centered community pages have seen frequent posts since early May complaining about the budget and the looming tax increase. Several commentors have defended Wong and her administration, but others have complained there's a pattern of high-handedness at Bloomfield town hall. 'They were given multiple opportunities to do the right thing, but they chose to ignore the will of the people,' James Biffer, a frequent critic of the administration, wrote soon after the suit was filed Wednesday. 'So now, there are consequences for those decisions.' The referendum itself passed, but narrowly and only because of an unusual charter requirement that 15% of all eligible voters must vote 'no' to reject it. The overall vote was 1,934 'against' and just 494 'for,' a four-to-one landslide. But opponents fell short of the 15% figure, so the budget was approved. Wong has said she's leaving when this term ends in November, and Democrats over the next few weeks are interviewing candidates for the council ballot going into the November election.
