What Happened
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay that temporarily halted a lower court ruling requiring President Trump to return control of thousands of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision came shortly after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer determined that Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard during protests over immigration raids was illegal, violating both statutory authority and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The appeals court’s ruling allows the National Guard to remain under federal control while a hearing is scheduled for the following Tuesday.
The controversy arose amid ongoing protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which had escalated tensions in the city. The deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines was intended by the Trump administration to restore order following violent incidents during the protests. However, the legality of this military mobilization has been challenged in court, with arguments centering on whether the situation constituted a rebellion or warranted federal intervention.
Key Details
-
Court Ruling: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by mobilizing the National Guard without the consent of the state governor. The judge expressed concern that the administration’s justification for the deployment could undermine civil liberties.
-
Appeals Court Decision: The 9th Circuit’s emergency stay allows the National Guard to remain under federal control while a three-judge panel reviews the case. The panel includes two judges appointed by Trump and one by President Biden.
-
Protests in Los Angeles: The protests began in response to aggressive federal immigration raids and have included both peaceful demonstrations and instances of violence. The LAPD reported numerous arrests related to curfew violations and unlawful assembly.
-
Military Deployment: Approximately 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines were deployed to Los Angeles. The Trump administration justified the deployment by claiming that the city faced potential destruction due to violent protests.
-
Public Sentiment: Polls indicate significant public disapproval of the military’s involvement in domestic policing, with many service members expressing discomfort about being used in a politically charged environment.
Multiple Perspectives
The situation has drawn varied responses from political leaders and military personnel. Governor Gavin Newsom described the court ruling as a victory for democracy, emphasizing that the federal government should not encroach upon state sovereignty without justification. He criticized the Trump administration for what he termed a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and accused it of inflaming tensions in Los Angeles.
Conversely, the Trump administration maintains that the deployment of troops was necessary to prevent further violence and ensure public safety. Trump and his officials argue that the protests represented a significant threat that justified federal intervention under Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
Military personnel deployed to Los Angeles have voiced concerns about their role in the protests. Advocacy groups representing military families reported that many service members felt uncomfortable with their assignment, viewing it as a political maneuver rather than a legitimate security operation. Some expressed that their military training did not prepare them for domestic law enforcement roles, which could lead to dangerous misunderstandings in high-stress situations.
Context & Background
The legal battle over the deployment of the National Guard is set against a backdrop of heightened tensions regarding immigration policy and civil rights in the United States. The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration has sparked widespread protests, particularly in states like California, where many residents oppose such measures.
The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, which is central to the arguments made by Newsom and other state officials. The deployment of military forces within U.S. cities raises complex legal and ethical questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
Historically, the use of military forces in domestic situations has been contentious. Past incidents, such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots, illustrate the potential for conflict between military and civilian law enforcement, highlighting the risks associated with such deployments.
What We Don’t Know Yet
As the case moves forward, several uncertainties remain. The outcome of the scheduled hearing by the 9th Circuit Court will be crucial in determining the future of the National Guard’s deployment in Los Angeles. Additionally, it is unclear how public sentiment may shift as the situation develops, particularly if protests continue or escalate.
The extent to which military personnel will continue to express dissatisfaction with their roles in this context is also uncertain. The implications of this deployment for future interactions between state and federal authorities regarding military involvement in domestic affairs remain to be seen.
Overall, the legal and political ramifications of this situation are likely to unfold in the coming weeks, as both sides prepare for further litigation and public discourse surrounding the issues at hand.
