Trump administration can deploy National Guard to Los Angeles for now, appeals court rules
Washington — A federal appeals court late Thursday temporarily halted a judge's ruling that had blocked the Trump administration from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles and ordered President Trump to return control to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Trump administration can deploy the National Guard to L.A. while the court considers the administration's appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said late Thursday.
The Ninth Circuit Court ordered a hearing before the three-judge panel for June 17 on the case.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that California officials are likely to succeed in their challenge to the president's decision to federalize members of the National Guard in response to protests in Los Angeles, and granted their request to block his use of the forces to assist immigration agents during raids.
"His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote of Mr. Trump in a 36-page decision. "He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."
The judge said Mr. Trump circumvented Newsom when he called the California National Guard into federal service, and therefore did not follow the procedural requirement laid out by Congress. He put his decision on hold until noon Friday. The Justice Department swiftly notified the court it was appealing the order, which it did later Thursday night, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene.
The appeals court granted an administrative stay in response to the government's emergency motion.
"The National Guard will come back under my authority by noon tomorrow," Newsom told reporters in a news briefing in San Francisco Thursday evening, following Breyer's ruling, but prior to the appeals court's decision. "The National Guard will be redeployed to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them."
"We're gratified," Newsom said. "Today is a big day for the Constitution of the United States, for our democracy. And I hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach, we push back against these authoritarian tendencies of a president that has pushed the boundaries, pushed the limit, but no longer can push this state around any longer."
Breyer issued his decision hours after holding a hearing in San Francisco, which marked the first test of Mr. Trump's decision to place more than 4,000 members of the California National Guard under federal control and send 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as they conduct immigration arrests.
The Trump administration's immigration crackdown sparked protests in California's largest city, which the president said in a June 7 memorandum constitutes "a form of rebellion against" the U.S. that allowed him to call up the National Guard under Title 10. Since the president deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, protests have popped up in a number of other cities, including Austin, Boston and New York City.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass imposed an 8 p.m. curfew on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Los Angeles Police Department said there have been at least 400 arrests since Saturday stemming from protests and other criminal activity in the downtown area.
Breyer's order only covered National Guard members, and he had indicated during the hearing that concerns about the potential actions of the Marines who have been sent to Los Angeles are so far speculative.
During the proceedings, Breyer at times appeared uncomfortable with the assertion from Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate that courts cannot review whether Mr. Trump's decision to call in the National Guard complies with Title 10.
"It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it," he said. "How is that any different than what a monarchist does?"
The judge continued: "This country was founded in response to a monarchy and the Constitution is a document of limitations … and an enunciation of rights."
Title 10 lays out three circumstances under which the National Guard can be called into federal service: when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S.; or when the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.
The measure then states the president "may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion or execute those laws." It says orders "shall be issued through" the governor.
Breyer indicated that the structure of the law undercuts the Justice Department's assertion that Title 10 gives the president complete discretion and allows him to bypass Newsom, who is the commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard.
"My point is if it were read the way the government has urged me to read it, it would've been rewritten entirely differently," he said.
Shumate, meanwhile, argued that there is one commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, the president, and when he makes a decision, states are "subservient" to it. He described Newsom as a "conduit" who cannot countermand the president's orders.
In his decision, Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short" of rebellion, as Mr. Trump claimed in his memorandum invoking Title 10. The administration, Breyer said, did not identify a "violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole."
"The definition of rebellion is unmet," Breyer wrote. "Moreover, the court is troubled by the implication inherent in defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
In his remarks Thursday, Newsom said, "Clearly there's no invasion, there's no rebellion, it's absurd."
Mr. Trump has argued that the military had to be sent into Los Angeles to protect ICE and other federal employees performing their duties, as well as government property. But the decision has escalated tensions with Newsom, a Democrat, who claimed the presence of the military in city streets threatened to destabilize the community and lead to an escalation.
Newsom's lawsuit
Newsom sued the Trump administration over the president's move and asked Breyer, who is presiding over the case, for early intervention Tuesday.
The governor argued that Mr. Trump "unlawfully bypassed" him when the president called the National Guard into service without his permission and said the federal law invoked by Mr. Trump to deploy the troops — Title 10 — does not give him the authority to do so under the current circumstances.
Newsom had asked Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, to temporarily limit troops to providing indirect assistance to federal officials by protecting immigration detention facilities or other federal buildings, or defending government employees at risk of physical harm. California officials want the judge to block the military from assisting in law-enforcement functions such as executing warrants, arrests, searches or checkpoints.
"These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use [of] federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm," California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a filing. "Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the city of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately."
Breyer declined to immediately grant California officials relief and instead set a hearing for Thursday afternoon to consider the request.
Nicholas Green, a lawyer with the state of California, said Mr. Trump's move to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles marks an "expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power." He said that the governor's office had received information that 140 Marines will replace and relieve National Guard members in Los Angeles within the next 24 hours.
In a filing submitted to the court, the Trump administration called Newsom's request for relief a "crass political stunt endangering American lives."
"There is no rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law. And the president has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
During testimony on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether he would abide by the judge's decision on the president's use of military forces in Los Angeles in response to the protests. Hegseth declined to definitively say and instead criticized federal judges.
"We've always looked at the decisions of the court," he said, adding "we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country."
Military officials have said that the Marines on the ground in Los Angeles do not have the authority to arrest people and are there to protect federal property and personnel. U.S. law prohibits the use of active-duty military for domestic law enforcement purposes unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Mr. Trump suggested earlier this week that he would use the law, which dates back to 1792, "if there's an insurrection."
As of Wednesday, roughly 2,800 National Guard and Marines are serving under the command of Task Force 51 and have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, according to U.S. Northern Command. There are an additional 2,000 to-be-identified National Guardsmen under federal command, according to the Defense Department.
The task force's mission is to protect federal personnel and property in the greater Los Angeles-area, and members have accompanied ICE on missions, according to U.S. Northern Command. It said the forces do not conduct civilian law enforcement functions, but can temporarily detain a person in "specific circumstances," such as to stop an assault or prevent interference with federal personnel performing their duties.
"They protect; they don't participate," it said in a statement Wednesday.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during a news conference in Los Angeles that immigration authorities have "tens of thousands of targets," but declined to say how many migrants have been arrested. Two officials with the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to CBS News on Wednesday that 330 migrants who are in the U.S. unlawfully have been arrested in Los Angeles since Friday, and 113 of them had prior criminal convictions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Podcast Bro Theo Von Questions How 'America First' Trump Really Is Amid Potential Iran War
Popular podcast host Theo Von joined Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) Friday in taking a hard stance against potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Khanna appeared on Von's podcast 'This Past Weekend' to discuss several topics, from foreign affairs to AI. At one point in the segment, Khanna promoted the War Powers Resolution, a bipartisan bill he introduced with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) aimed at prohibiting U.S. armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. During his discussion with Von, Khanna noted several people in MAGA's base who have been vocal about the U.S. not going to war with Iran, including Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). Von agreed with the two conservatives, stating, 'this is a horrible idea.' 'Yeah, people say, 'Well, you don't know a ton about the Middle East.' Like, that's fine. I don't want people I know, my friends, getting called up. I don't want the children of my friends getting called over to die,' Von said. 'I don't even understand how it's an option.' Von, who had Donald Trump on his podcast last year, helped the president reach younger male voters during the 2024 presidential election. Khanna remarked on the influence of Von's interview with Trump, stating the podcaster made the president 'the most human that I've actually seen him,' after the two opened up about the president's brother, alcoholism and cocaine. Last month, Von performed a controversial comedy act at a military base in Qatar before Trump addressed U.S. and Qatari troops. The podcast host has seemingly gotten closer to the Trump family, even having dinner with Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, after they attended his comedy show in Miami. Miami looked good on you @TheoVon ! Come back and visit us soon !😎 — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) May 14, 2025 Now, however, Von is beginning to question the 'America First' claims that Trump made during his campaign. When Khanna asked Von if he knew anyone who was supporting the idea of the U.S. going to war with Iran, Von responded, 'Nobody.' I asked @TheoVon if he knows anyone who says we should go to war with Nobody. I feel like it was supposed to be America first. — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 20, 2025 Von went on to tell Khanna that 'it feels like we are just working for Israel,' and that he believes a lot of Americans are beginning to feel 'disillusioned' by U.S. leaders. 'I felt like it was supposed to be America first, like, we're focusing on, like, 'What are we doing to get things back into America,' right? To like, increase like the purpose of being an American, to refill our hearts with blood and ... make us feel something again here, and make us be excited about being an American,' Von said. JD Vance Tells Theo Von Musk Made A 'Huge Mistake' Going After Trump Exclusive: Israel Seeks Swift Action On Iran, Sources Say, With A Split U.S. Administration Trump Says He Should've Gotten 5 Nobel Peace Prizes While Continuing To Weigh Iran Strikes
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christina Bohannan makes third run for Iowa's 1st Congressional District
Jun. 21—History shows that just because a candidate makes multiple attempts to win an election doesn't mean they can't eventually pull through. U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks lost a number of times to Dave Loebsack before winning Iowa's 1st Congressional District seat in a close 2020 election. Now her past Democratic challenger, Christina Bohannan, is attempting the same thing for the 2026 election cycle, provided she is the favorite in the primary. On June 17, Bohannan announced her campaign to take on Miller-Meeks once again. In a press release, her campaign said Bohannan nearly defeated Miller-Meeks in 2024 — less than 800 votes decided the election — and that the Democrat "outworked, outraised and outmatched her." Bohannan said, "Mariannette Miller-Meeks has had three terms in Congress — three chances to do right by the people of Iowa. Instead, she has taken over $4 million from corporate special interests and done nothing but vote their way. And she has put partisan politics over Iowans again and again. From cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid in the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful Bill, to siding with DOGE's cuts to Social Security and enabling unelected, unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk, Bohannan said the Republican congresswoman has forgotten about her constituents. "It's time someone put Iowa first," Bohannan said. Bohannan went on to say Miller-Meeks needs to explain "why she keeps putting Washington special interests first." The Democratic challenger claimed Miller-Meeks supported Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, repeatedly voted for cost-increasing tariffs and is a member of the DOGE Caucus. Bohannan previously worked as an engineer and taught at the University of Iowa College of Law for 20 years. She also worked as an elected legislator for the Iowa House, defeating a 20-year incumbent in District 85. Bohannan is running for Congress because she believes in a government that works for the people. In May, another Democrat announced he would be running for Iowa's 1st Congressional District. Bob Krause, a former legislator who also tried running for U.S. Senate, announced his campaign with the slogan "Flip The House With Krause." Krause said Miller-Meeks votes "like Trump's rubber stamp." Travis Terrell, a Democrat from Johnson County, also announced his bid for Iowa's 1st Congressional District race. His campaign page on Facebook notes he is a working-class, New Deal Democrat fighting for healthcare, fair wages and a government that serves other working-class people and not billionaires. In addition to Miller-Meeks likely running for the seat, fellow Republican and former primary challenger David Pautsch announced in February that he would also be running for the seat. Pautsch touts himself as a MAGA Republican. He has been critical of Miller-Meeks, saying she is not conservative enough.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator Alex Padilla calls out JD Vance for wrongly calling him ‘José': ‘The Vice President knows my name'
Senator Alex Padilla called out Vice President JD Vance for — he claims — intentionally getting his first name wrong when he was giving comments about Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles. During a visit to LA on Friday to inspect President Donald Trump's domestic troop deployment, Vance called Padilla "José." 'Well, I was hoping José Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater, and that's all it is,' Vance said. He was referring to Padilla being dragged out of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's June 12 press conference, pulled to the ground and handcuffed. The senator said in a comment on X that the vice president knows his name, and called the remark a "petty slight." "The Vice President knows my name. But that's not the point," Padilla wrote. "He should be focused on removing the thousands of unnecessary troops from the streets of Los Angeles, not petty slights." He also shared a clip of a MSNBC news program he appeared on in which he said Vance should be spending his time learning more about the effects of the ICE raids and speaking with families who are being "terrorized" by the federal agents. In the clip, Padilla challenges Vance to talk to the Marines and National Guard members who he says do not want to be stationed in LA, to the city officials and the LA sheriff whose jobs, he says, have been made more difficult by the presence of the military in the city, or to fire victims who have still not received federal aid. "We've got a lot of important work to do, but this is how the vice president chooses to act," he said. 'Sadly, it's just an indicator of how petty and unserious this administration is ... you'd think he'd take the situation in Los Angeles more seriously.' Padilla and Vance served together in the 100-member U.S. Senate between January 2021 and January 2025. As vice-president, Vance is now president of the Senate. Padilla wasn't the only one unimpressed by Vance's comments in LA. The city's mayor, Karen Bass, called his commentary "an attempt to provoke division and conflict" and that he spent his time "spewing lies and utter nonsense." 'We were able to handle the violence and the vandalism that occurred,' Bass said. 'Our streets have been peaceful, and even when there was vandalism at its height, you are talking about a couple hundred people who were not necessarily associated with any of the peaceful protests.' She also accused Vance of disrespecting the senator by calling him the wrong name. 'How dare you disrespect our senator?' she said during a press conference. 'The last time I checked, the vice president of the United States is the president of the U.S. Senate. You serve with him today, and how dare you disrespect him and call him José? But I guess he just looked like anybody to you. Well, he's not just anybody to us. He is our senator.' Governor Gavin Newsom also waded into the fight, implying that Vance was being intentionally dismissive and disrespectful to the senator. 'JD Vance served with Alex Padilla in the United States Senate,' the governor wrote on X. 'Calling him 'José Padilla' is not an accident.'
