9th Circuit blocks Trump National Guard deployment
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
A 2-1 9th Circuit panel ruled Trump's deployment of about 4,000 California National Guard troops unlawful, returning control to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The ruling limits a president's power to federalize a state's Guard over a governor's objection.
Background
The dispute began when President Donald Trump federalized about 4,000 California National Guard troops and sent them to Los Angeles during unrest over immigration enforcement; California, led by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, sued two days after the deployment began. A lower court blocked the move, but the 9th Circuit (a federal appeals court covering Western states) initially let the deployment proceed under an obscure, rarely tested subsection of the law. The case returned to the appeals court after the Supreme Court found Trump didn't meet the legal requirements to unilaterally deploy the Guard to Chicago.
How it unfolded
- Jun 7, 2025The 9th Circuit majority later said conditions in Los Angeles on this date did not reflect a colorable assessment of 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion.'
- Jun 8, 2025California National Guard troops monitored protests against the Trump administration's immigration raids in Los Angeles.
- Jun 10, 2025California National Guard members were positioned at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles.
- 2025Trump federalized about 4,000 California National Guard troops for 60 days; California sued two days after the deployment began.
- 2025U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer moved to block the deployment, but the 9th Circuit stayed his order and allowed it to proceed under a rarely tested subsection of the law.
- Dec 2025A 9th Circuit order prevented the Trump administration from continuing its federalization of California Guard troops.
- Oct 23, 2026A three-judge 9th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the deployment was unlawful and unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's preliminary injunction and returning control of the Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom; it also dismissed a separate appeal over later extensions.
Who’s saying what
- Majority
- Judge Jennifer Sung wrote that the order exceeded the president's statutory authority and encroached on Congress's power, and that finding a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' in Los Angeles did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.
- Dissent
- Judge Mark Bennett said his colleagues shouldn't have decided the case, arguing the majority pressed forward on outdated briefs prepared amid a shifting legal landscape.
- California
- Gov. Gavin Newsom called the ruling a rejection of an illegal, authoritarian takeover of the state's National Guard, and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said it blocks federal overreach and preserves the state's right to withhold consent.
- Administration
- The Trump administration argued that violent demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles and immigration protests justified the president taking control of the Guard, and that his federalization authority was beyond judicial review.