June 20, 2025 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – A federal appeals court has denied Governor Gavin Newsom’s request to regain control over the California National Guard troops currently deployed in Los Angeles. The deployment, initiated by President Trump in response to violent protests surrounding recent immigration enforcement actions, was challenged by California on constitutional grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government was acting within its legal authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
This decision comes amid growing concern over the boundaries of federal versus state power during civil unrest. The outcome may influence how future emergencies are managed in cities across the country. For the average American, it reflects the ongoing balance between public safety, states’ rights, and the reach of federal authority.
Quick Links
- Why Did Governor Newsom Want Control Over the National Guard?
- What Did the Federal Appeals Court Rule and Why?
- How Does This Ruling Affect the Balance of State and Federal Power?
- What Are the Broader Implications for Emergency Management in America?
- What Does This Mean for the Average American Household?
Why Did Governor Newsom Want Control Over the National Guard?
Governor Newsom sought to reassert California’s authority over its National Guard units, arguing that the state should manage its own emergency responses, especially when the deployments occur within its borders. State officials claimed that federal control could inflame tensions and undermine local strategies for calming unrest. They also expressed concerns about the Guard’s use in immigration-related crackdowns, which Newsom has long opposed.
Newsom’s legal team pointed to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement, and emphasized the state’s history of handling its own emergencies. The governor’s office believed that federal involvement was politically motivated and disproportionate to the situation on the ground.
Opponents of the lawsuit, including some legal scholars and security analysts, argued that the situation had escalated beyond what state authorities could manage. They cited attacks on federal buildings and personnel, and they viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to avoid accountability for maintaining public order. The tension between maintaining peace and respecting civil liberties was at the heart of this legal challenge.
What Did the Federal Appeals Court Rule and Why?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s authority to control the National Guard under Title 10 of the United States Code. The court found that the deployment met the legal criteria for federal intervention due to threats against federal interests, including attacks on immigration offices and personnel. The judges concluded that the President was within his rights to federalize the Guard in order to restore order and protect government functions.
The court emphasized that while states normally command their National Guard units, the federal government can assume control in cases where local authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. The opinion also noted that federal authority does not require a governor’s consent in such circumstances, especially when federal property and employees are at risk.
The decision struck down a lower court’s temporary ruling in favor of Newsom and allows the federal deployment to continue while the broader constitutional questions are considered. It reflects a strict reading of executive powers during emergencies and highlights the judiciary’s deference to the President in national security matters.
How Does This Ruling Affect the Balance of State and Federal Power?
This ruling reinforces the federal government’s ability to override state decisions during emergencies, particularly when federal interests are threatened. It demonstrates that state leaders, regardless of political affiliation, may face limits on their authority during times of civil unrest or when national security is involved.
For those concerned about centralized power, the decision serves as a reminder that the federal government maintains ultimate control over military assets, even those typically managed by the states. On the other hand, the ruling also ensures that the federal government can respond swiftly to crises without getting bogged down in state-level political debates or procedural delays.
Legal scholars suggest that the case could prompt Congress to revisit laws governing the use of the National Guard. While some may argue for clearer limitations on presidential authority, others see this flexibility as essential for maintaining order in a rapidly changing environment. The decision ultimately reflects the complex balance between ensuring public safety and preserving state autonomy.
What Are the Broader Implications for Emergency Management in America?
This ruling may shape how future protests, disasters, and emergencies are handled across the country. Governors may become more cautious about challenging federal deployments, knowing that courts are likely to uphold executive action under Title 10. This could lead to faster and more consistent national responses during times of crisis but may also reduce the influence of local decision-makers.
Emergency planners and legal experts have expressed concern that the federalization of the Guard could complicate coordination between local, state, and federal agencies. The blending of military and civilian roles may also raise civil liberties concerns, particularly if military forces are used in policing roles.
At the same time, the decision provides clarity for future emergencies. Federal agencies now have stronger legal footing to act decisively when unrest threatens federal infrastructure. The challenge will be ensuring that such authority is not abused and that states retain meaningful input in how their communities are managed during times of crisis.
What Does This Mean for the Average American Household?
For everyday Americans, the ruling may seem distant, but its effects are tangible. If unrest breaks out in a major city and local officials struggle to contain it, federal troops may be deployed more quickly and with fewer legal challenges. This could bring faster restoration of order, but it could also lead to longer deployments and more visible military presence in civilian areas.
For businesses and families trying to maintain normal life during disruptions, the presence of the National Guard may offer a sense of security. However, prolonged federal involvement can also raise questions about civil rights, public oversight, and the transparency of emergency decision-making.
Ultimately, this case reminds Americans that constitutional principles continue to shape how crises are handled. It reinforces the importance of understanding who holds power during emergencies and how those decisions can impact daily life. Whether one supports state leadership or federal intervention, the decision affects how freedom, security, and authority coexist during uncertain times.
Final Thoughts
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the separation of powers in the United States. Governor Newsom may continue to challenge the decision in higher courts, but for now, control of the National Guard in Los Angeles remains with the federal government. This case is likely to influence future conflicts over emergency powers and may serve as a model for how courts interpret executive authority in times of unrest.
For the American public, the decision highlights the need for clear laws and responsible leadership at all levels. As cities continue to grapple with social tension and political division, the ability to maintain public safety while respecting individual rights will remain a central challenge for state and federal leaders alike.
Works Cited
Knauth, Dietrich, and Tom Hals. “U.S. Court Lets Trump Keep Control of California National Guard for Now.” Reuters, 20 June 2025, www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-lets-trump-retain-control-california-national-guard-now-2025-06-20/. Accessed 20 June 2025.
Hiramoto, KJ. “Trump Can Keep Control of National Guard in Los Angeles, Appeals Court Rules.” FOX 11 Los Angeles, 19 June 2025, www.foxla.com/news/trump-can-keep-national-guard-los-angeles-now-appeals-court. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Associated Press. “Appeals Court Temporarily Blocks Judge’s Ruling to Return Control of National Guard to California.” AP News, 14 June 2025, apnews.com/article/california-immigration-national-guard-newsom-trump-lawsuit-aedf8cdd95ee899c9559d5e54a2e4833. Accessed 19 June 2025.