A federal judge issued a directive requiring that authority over federalized National Guard forces in California be restored to Gov. Gavin Newsom, marking a significant setback to efforts by the Trump administration to continue deploying Guard troops in Los Angeles. The ruling underscored the judge’s conclusion that the administration’s attempt to maintain full control over state troops ran counter to constitutional principles, noting that allowing a president to “hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government.” This decision emerged at a time when other legal battles involving National Guard deployments were progressing through both appellate courts and the Supreme Court, reflecting the ongoing national scrutiny surrounding these actions.
Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer determined that command of the remaining 300 Guard troops must immediately revert to Newsom. The governor had filed suit in June, arguing that the administration had improperly seized authority over thousands of troops in response to protests tied to immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. Breyer had previously ruled on June 12 that the deployment was unlawful, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed that decision, stating that the statute cited by the administration offered a broad degree of presidential discretion in evaluating whether a rebellion was occurring in the city, echoing claims put forth by the Justice Department at the time.
A similar sequence played out in Oregon during the autumn, when 200 California Guard troops were dispatched to assist in managing protests outside an ICE facility. That ruling, however, was ultimately vacated after allegations surfaced that the Justice Department had exaggerated the number of federal protective personnel assigned to Portland and had provided other inaccuracies during the court process. The matter is now being reconsidered by a larger panel within the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court is evaluating a nearly identical challenge concerning National Guard deployment in Illinois.
Within both cases, several conservative judicial appointees signaled reservations about the idea that a president could order long-term federalization of state troops without meaningful checks. Judge Jay Bybee emphasized those concerns in a detailed filing supporting the expanded 9th Circuit review, stating, “States are not only owed protection by the federal government, they are owed protection from it,” and cautioning that federal control over domestic matters represents a serious threat to state sovereignty. He also reiterated that the Constitution’s “domestic violence” clause had been crafted to allow the use of armed forces in such situations only as a last resort, adding that claims of necessity should be supported with evidence and subject to challenge, “particularly in the face of contrary evidence.”
That position drew sharp criticism from the newest member of the court, Judge Eric Tung, appointed by Trump, who aligned with the administration’s argument that its deployment decisions were “unreviewable” by judicial bodies. Their exchange highlighted increasing divisions within the 9th Circuit, a court that had historically been the most liberal appellate jurisdiction in the United States. During Trump’s first term, the circuit was reshaped significantly through 10 new appointments, largely recommended by Federalist Society figure Leonard Leo. In more recent years, influence reportedly shifted toward Mike Davis of the Article III Project, whose preferences tended to skew further to the right.
