The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has handed California Gov. Gavin Newsom a huge loss in his fight with President Donald Trump over the activation of National Guard troops to protect federal assets during the ongoing Los Angeles riots.
That violence, attacks on federal officers, destruction of vehicles, vandalism of buildings and more, started when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers launched a raid to deliver warrants and make arrests in a cartel criminal investigation, involving, among other things, laundering money.
Local activists claimed it was nothing but immigration raids and triggered riots, with Trump calling out National Guard troops to protect federal assets.
Newsom sued, and a leftist local judge ordered the president to return control of the troops to Newsom.
That now has been put on hold.
Explained constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, “Gov. Gavin Newsom just lost a major ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump is likely to prevail in his deployment of National Guard troops. Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump’s order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments.”
The appeals court action blocked an injunction created by a leftist, Charles Breyer, the entry level court judge “who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another ‘King George.’ He then wrote an opinion that included many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder,” Turley explained.
“Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting,” Turley noted.
Gavin Newsom just lost his lawsuit to remove the National Guard from LA. The 9th Circuit’s ruling against him is unanimous.
The Governor owes an apology to our dedicated National Guard Members and to California taxpayers. pic.twitter.com/obu2S4mmYc
— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) June 20, 2025
BREAKING Donald Trump just dropped the on Gavin Newsom after he WINS the Ninth Court of Appeals “Congrats Ninth Court. America is proud”
Let’s make sure EVERY Democrat sees this
MAGA won’t stop winning pic.twitter.com/fj8QyIJqv5
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) June 20, 2025
The appeals court cited the justifications for calling on the troops to include:
“Whenever— (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”
Breyer claimed Trump could not use part three “if there was any possibility of executing federal laws absent the use of the National Guard troops.”
The appeals court said that was misguided, as, “Section 12406 does not have as a prerequisite that the President be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws of the United States in order to call members of the National Guard into federal service, nor does it suggest that activation is inappropriate so long as any continued execution of the laws is feasible.”
“Defendants have made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor to § 12406, our review of that decision must be highly deferential. Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which authorizes federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’ Additionally, the Secretary of Defense’s transmittal of the order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard—who is authorized under California law to ‘issue all orders in the name of the Governor,’ CAL. MIL. & VET. CODE § 163— likely satisfied the statute’s procedural requirement that federalization orders be 3 issued ‘through’ the Governor,” the ruling said.
Even if there was a procedural mistake, the court said, “that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court’s TRO. Our conclusion that it is likely that the President’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was authorized under § 12406(3) also resolves the Tenth Amendment claim because the parties agree that the Tenth Amendment claim turns on the statutory claim. We also conclude that the other stay factors—irreparable harm to Defendants, injury to Plaintiffs, and the public interest—weigh in Defendants’ favor. Thus, we grant the motion for a stay pending appeal.”
The court ruling acknowledged the violence of the riots, how protesters blocked traffic and used shopping carts to barricade a street for hours, rioters who attacked federal officers and threw mortar-style fireworks at them.
Others were “dangerous” because they threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at officers, burned vehicles, vandalized property.
The result was that officers were injured.
Trump’s response was to call the Guard troops to protect federal officers and property, and Newsom demanded that the order be reversed.
