Left: Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised state budget during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Wednesday, May 14, 2025 (Photo/Rich Pedroncelli). Right: US President Donald Trump talks with reporters about California Governor Gavin Newsom upon arriving at the White House on June 9, 2025, at the South Lawn in Washington, DC, USA (Photo by Lenin Nolly/NurPhoto via AP).
A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will allow the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard to parts of Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement to stand — at least for now.
The late-night reprieve is a victory for the Trump administration in the case brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. The administration had immediately appealed a Thursday ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer determining that President Donald Trump‘s move to assume control over the National Guard in the Golden State both “illegal” and a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
The administrative stay from the 9th Circuit was followed by an expedited schedule: the appellate court has ordered California to respond by 9 a.m. on Sunday. California had opposed the stay request by calling it “unnecessary and unwarranted in light of” Breyer’s “extensive reasoning[.]”
Breyer is a Bill Clinton appointee who also happens to be the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
In his Thursday order, Breyer said Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard in response to “unruly and even violent” actors among those protesting ICE raids in Los Angeles didn’t pass legal muster because the Trump administration did not persuade him that a “rebellion” — or a “danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States” — was afoot.
“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote. “He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole. The definition of rebellion is unmet,” Breyer added later.
But even as Breyer — who reportedly referenced King George III during the hearing — said that Trump should return control of the National Guard to Newsom “forthwith,” he stayed his temporary restraining order, giving the federal government enough time to swiftly appeal the ruling.
The Trump administration did just that, calling Breyer’s action “an extraordinary intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief[.]”
Not conceding that Breyer had the authority for reviewing or “second-guessing” Trump’s order, the Trump administration insisted the president had “more than ample grounds to determine that the riots rose to the level of a ‘danger’ of rebellion, and that state and local law enforcement were ‘unable’ to sufficiently protect federal personnel and property.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit also scheduled a Zoom hearing for noon on June 17. The panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, both Trump appointees, and Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee.
The district court case before Breyer, meanwhile, has a hearing on Newsom’s restraining order request set for June 20.
