A federal appeals court in San Francisco heard arguments over President Trump’s controversial deployment of nearly 4,000 California National Guard troops—and 700 Marines—to Los Angeles amid anti-ICE protests, raising sharp questions about federal authority over state military forces.
At a Glance
- The 9th Circuit is reviewing whether Trump can federalize state National Guard troops without California’s consent
- A district judge ruled the deployment unconstitutional, but that order is on hold pending appeal
- Judges questioned whether courts can even review presidential orders under 10 U.S.C. § 252
- California argues the move violated state sovereignty and ignored required consultation
- The case marks the first emergency federalization of state Guard forces since 1965
A Legal Tug‑of‑War Over Federal Power
The court session spotlighted a clash between executive power and state rights. Federal judges questioned if Trump holds unchecked authority under 10 U.S.C. § 252 to seize control of state troops in a domestic unrest scenario. While the 1827 precedent Martin v. Mott favors broad presidential discretion, California’s legal team argued that Trump violated constitutional limits and failed to consult Governor Gavin Newsom.
Court’s Pause vs. Constitutional Integrity
Previously, District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s action overstepped constitutional and statutory bounds. However, the 9th Circuit Appeals panel quickly stayed that decision, permitting federal control to continue while the case is pending. Judges pressed both sides on whether such federal orders could even be subjected to judicial review.
Why It Matters—Now and Beyond
If upheld, this case could dramatically shift the federal-state balance on military control. California argues the move risks setting a dangerous precedent—allowing future presidents to federalize National Guard units unilaterally. The New York Post noted that the panel appeared inclined to side with Trump, raising the prospect that state sovereignty could yield to executive military authority in times of civil unrest.
As the case continues, legal scholars warn it may shape how domestic military deployments are governed in years to come—impacting future conflicts well beyond the streets of Los Angeles.
