An appeals court in Los Angeles has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, allowing him to maintain control over National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests against immigration raids. This decision reverses a previous ruling by a lower court, which had determined that Trump’s activation of the National Guard troops was illegal due to the lack of authorization from California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ruling is notable as it marks the first instance since 1965 where a president has deployed a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent. A unanimous three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the administration’s arguments that federalizing control was warranted due to violent protests that targeted federal officers and facilities.
The court noted that evidence presented included instances of protesters attacking officers with objects and damaging federal property. The judges emphasized the federal government’s significant interest in preventing further incidents of violence. Importantly, they ruled that even if proper notification to the governor was not given, this did not grant Newsom the authority to reject Trump’s order.
Trump celebrated the court’s decision on social media, referring to it as a “BIG WIN” and reiterating the necessity of federal intervention in cases where local law enforcement may be overwhelmed. Meanwhile, Newsom expressed disappointment in the ruling but found some solace in the court’s rejection of Trump’s broad claims of unchecked power over troop deployment.
This legal battle raises questions about the extent of presidential powers in managing military resources domestically, particularly in a politically divided landscape, as tensions around immigration practices continue to simmer.
In a broader sense, this case could set significant precedents for future federal-state relations regarding law enforcement and military authority. As protests diminish in intensity, the outcome of this lawsuit remains to be seen, signifying an ongoing struggle between federal authority and state governance.