What Happened
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a late-night ruling that temporarily halted a lower court’s order requiring President Donald Trump to return control of thousands of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision came after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard during protests related to immigration raids was illegal, exceeding his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 9th Circuit’s emergency stay means that the National Guard will remain under federal control while the court reviews the case, with a hearing scheduled for the following Tuesday.
The controversy arose amid heightened tensions in Los Angeles, where protests against immigration enforcement had escalated. Judge Breyer expressed concern that the Trump administration’s justification for the deployment—labeling the protests as a “rebellion”—could undermine First Amendment rights. The ruling was characterized by Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta as a victory for democracy and civil liberties, while the Trump administration indicated plans to appeal the decision.
Key Details
- Court Ruling: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, which mandated the return of National Guard troops to state control.
- Judicial Panel: The 9th Circuit panel consisted of three judges, two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden.
- Legal Basis: Judge Breyer’s ruling stated that Trump had exceeded his authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows federalization of the National Guard only in cases of rebellion or imminent danger.
- Deployment Context: The National Guard was mobilized in response to protests against immigration raids, which had resulted in some violence but were deemed by Breyer as not constituting a rebellion.
- Political Reactions: Newsom and Bonta framed the ruling as a defense of state sovereignty and civil rights, while the Trump administration maintained that the deployment was necessary to restore order.
Multiple Perspectives
The situation has elicited a range of responses from various stakeholders:
-
California Officials: Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta view the court’s ruling as a reaffirmation of state rights and a necessary check on federal overreach. They argue that the deployment was an unnecessary escalation that inflamed tensions rather than alleviating them.
-
Trump Administration: The administration contends that the mobilization of the National Guard was legally justified and necessary to maintain public order amid civil unrest. They argue that the protests posed a significant threat that warranted federal intervention.
-
Legal Experts: Some legal analysts suggest that the case raises important questions about the limits of presidential power and the role of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement. Others caution that the ruling could set a precedent for how federal and state powers interact during emergencies.
Context & Background
The ruling comes at a time of significant political and social unrest in the United States, particularly concerning immigration policy. The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration has led to widespread protests and civil disobedience, particularly in states like California, which have large immigrant populations. The deployment of the National Guard in response to these protests has sparked debates about the appropriate use of military resources in civilian contexts and the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
Historically, the National Guard has been used in various capacities, including during civil rights protests and natural disasters. However, the current situation is unique due to the political climate and the contentious nature of immigration policy under the Trump administration. The legal arguments surrounding the deployment reflect broader tensions regarding civil liberties, state sovereignty, and federal authority.
What We Don’t Know Yet
As the case moves forward, several uncertainties remain:
-
Outcome of the Hearing: The upcoming hearing scheduled by the 9th Circuit will determine the next steps in the case. It is unclear how the court will rule on the merits of the arguments presented by both sides.
-
Long-term Implications: The broader implications of this ruling for federal-state relations and the use of the National Guard in domestic situations remain to be seen. Legal experts are closely monitoring how this case may influence future deployments and the interpretation of presidential powers.
-
Public Response: The public’s reaction to the ongoing protests and the federal response will likely continue to evolve. The potential for further unrest or escalation in tensions is a concern for both state and federal authorities.
In summary, the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling reflects a critical moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy, state sovereignty, and the appropriate use of military force in domestic affairs. As the situation develops, it will be essential to monitor both the legal proceedings and the public’s response to these contentious issues.
