Los Angeles, CA – A federal appeals court late Thursday, June 19, 2025, issued a pivotal ruling, allowing President Donald Trump to maintain federal command over approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines deployed to Los Angeles. The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court order that had sought the removal of the federalized forces.
The deployment followed widespread protests that erupted in Los Angeles around June 6, 2025. These demonstrations were sparked by intensified actions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducting raids targeting individuals allegedly involved in illegal immigration activities within the city.
President Trump, a Republican, defended the federalization and deployment, arguing the troops were necessary to quell the demonstrations, restore order, and protect federal personnel, specifically ICE agents, amidst the unrest. Conversely, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, vociferously opposed the move, contending it represented an overreach of federal power that usurped state authority over its National Guard and unnecessarily inflamed already tense situations.
The Appeals Court Decision
The Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling was delivered late in the day on Thursday, June 19, 2025. The three-judge panel, consisting of Trump appointees Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, alongside President Joe Biden appointee Judge Jennifer Sung, found it likely that President Trump had lawfully exercised his statutory authority in federalizing the Guard troops. Their unanimous decision provides temporary legal validation for the continued federal control and presence of the combined force of California National Guard personnel and active-duty Marines in the city.
This significant appellate ruling directly reversed an earlier order from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. Judge Breyer had previously directed the Trump administration to withdraw the federalized troops from Los Angeles, siding, at least in part, with arguments challenging the basis and legality of the deployment without explicit state consent.
Background to the Deployment
The origins of the crisis trace back to early June 2025. Around June 6, 2025, ICE operations targeting alleged illegal immigration activities led to heightened tensions and subsequent protests across Los Angeles. The scale and intensity of these demonstrations prompted the Trump administration to invoke federal authority, bypassing the typical state chain of command for the National Guard, which usually falls under gubernatorial control unless federalized.
President Trump cited the need for federal intervention to protect federal infrastructure, personnel, and to assist in maintaining public order, framing the situation as one requiring a robust federal response to safeguard national interests and enforce federal law. Governor Newsom argued that the situation, while challenging, remained within the purview of state and local law enforcement capabilities and that the introduction of federal troops, particularly the active-duty Marines alongside the Guard, was an escalation that infringed upon the state’s sovereignty and potentially exacerbated civil unrest.
Legal Battle and Differing Interpretations
The legal challenge brought against the federal deployment centered on complex questions of federalism and the specific statutes governing the President’s authority to federalize state militia forces and deploy active-duty military within the United States. The Insurrection Act and related provisions grant the President power under certain conditions, but the specifics of when and how this authority can be invoked have been subjects of historical and legal debate, particularly concerning domestic civil unrest and the relationship with state governors’ authority over their National Guard forces when not federalized.
The Trump administration’s legal team argued that the conditions in Los Angeles met the threshold for federal intervention under applicable law, citing the need to protect federal agents and ensure the execution of federal law amidst widespread disruption. California’s challenge, however, posited that the federal action was an overreach, potentially politically motivated, and undertaken without the necessary legal predicates or regard for the state’s primary responsibility for public safety within its borders. The inclusion of active-duty Marines also raised separate legal questions regarding the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts the use of U.S. military personnel for domestic law enforcement purposes, although exceptions exist under certain circumstances, such as those covered by the Insurrection Act.
What Comes Next
Despite the Ninth Circuit’s ruling maintaining the federal control for now, the legal battle is far from over. The appeals court’s decision focused primarily on the likelihood of the President’s lawful authority for the purposes of overturning the immediate lower court order. The case is now set to return to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s court for further proceedings. These proceedings will include a more comprehensive consideration of the merits of the case, including arguments for and against a broader preliminary injunction that could potentially challenge the federal deployment on a more permanent basis.
The return to the district court means that while the troops remain under federal command following the appeals court’s intervention, the underlying legal questions regarding the scope of presidential power in deploying troops domestically without state consent during civil disturbances will continue to be litigated. The outcome of these further proceedings in Judge Breyer’s court, and potential future appeals, will be closely watched for their implications on federal-state dynamics and the President’s authority during domestic crises.
