Appeals Court Halts Order to Transfer Control of National Guard from Trump to California

An appeals court has temporarily permitted the Trump administration to maintain control of California's National Guard troops after a prior ruling deemed the president's deployment illegal. The legal battle centers on whether Trump's actions complied with congressional law governing National Guard deployment.

An appeals court has intervened to keep the National Guard under President Trump’s control in California, halting a federal judge’s order that mandated the return of authority to the state. This ruling came shortly after a judge found the deployment of troops to Los Angeles to enforce immigration policies unlawful. Trump justified the troop presence by claiming it was necessary to prevent unrest over his stringent immigration actions, stating the city faced a risk of "burning down." However, California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials rebutted this claim, calling the military presence an unnecessary provocation.

The appeals court signaled it will hold further discussions about the case next week. A federal judge previously ruled that the central issue was whether Trump adhered to the legal framework established by Congress regarding the National Guard's deployment. In his verdict, Judge Charles Breyer stated unequivocally that Trump acted illegally and ordered the immediate return of control of the National Guard to Governor Newsom. Nevertheless, the judge put a temporary hold on his ruling for a few days to allow the Trump administration a chance to contest it, which they did almost immediately.

Governor Newsom took to social media to emphasize that the court recognized the military's proper role, stating that “the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.” The Trump administration's rationale for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines was to maintain order amidst heightened tensions over ICE activities in Los Angeles, where a series of protests had resulted in over 300 arrests and disruptions, including a major freeway closure.

In court, a justice department attorney argued that Governor Newsom did not need to be consulted about the presidential deployment order. This assertion was countered by Judge Breyer, who maintained that the President is not the overall commander-in-chief of the National Guard. Breyer, citing the Constitution, underscored the limits of presidential authority, drawing parallels to the historical context of governance.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, when questioned before the House Armed Services Committee, declined to confirm whether he would adhere to the judge's order, arguing that local judges should not dictate the nation’s security strategy. The appeals court's recent decision allows Trump's administration to retain the National Guard in Los Angeles while the case unfolds in the judiciary.

California argued that the ongoing protests did not meet the criteria of a rebellion as defined by legal standards, contesting the validity of using the National Guard in this context. The controversy continues as social tensions rise, and both state and federal leaders navigate the legal implications of military involvement in domestic affairs.