Ninth Circuit: Trump Exceeded National Guard LA Authority

• The Ninth Circuit ruled that former President Trump overstepped his authority by deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles last year.
• The court affirmed an injunction, rejecting the administration's claim that protests constituted a 'rebellion' under federal law.
• This decision aligns with a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that limited presidential power to federalize the National Guard in Chicago.
• U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung's opinion cited a lack of organized violence to justify the 'rebellion' designation.
• The ruling clarifies that federalization under Title 10 U.S. Code requires a high legal threshold, limiting executive power in civil unrest scenarios.

This decision by the Ninth Circuit underscores a critical limitation on presidential authority to federalize state military forces, establishing a high legal threshold for invoking 'rebellion' under federal statute.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that former President Donald Trump exceeded his executive authority when he federalized the National Guard in Los Angeles last year. This split decision affirmed a preliminary injunction that had previously blocked the deployment, which occurred in response to protests against an immigration crackdown in Southern California. The court explicitly rejected the Trump administration's assertion that the conditions in Los Angeles constituted a "rebellion" or posed a danger of one against the U.S. government, a key argument for federalizing state military forces.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, authored the majority opinion, stating that deeming the situation in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, as a "rebellion or danger of rebellion" did not represent a "colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment." Judge Sung highlighted the absence of evidence indicating organized bad actors, noting instead that any violence was sporadic or impromptu. This finding echoed the conclusions of the trial judge in San Francisco who initially issued a temporary restraining order against the National Guard deployment. Judge Sung was joined in the majority by U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, while U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, also a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the panel should not have addressed the merits after the Trump administration sought to withdraw its appeal.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling was heavily influenced by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from the previous year, which had similarly barred the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. That Supreme Court precedent established that the federal government had failed to demonstrate that Title 10 of the U.S. Code permitted the president to federalize the Guard solely to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois. This critical legal context informed the Ninth Circuit's assessment of the Los Angeles situation, finding no plausible basis for a "rebellion" in the city.

Title 10 U.S. Code is a rarely invoked statute that outlines the conditions under which a president can federalize the National Guard. These conditions are narrowly defined, typically limited to instances of foreign invasion, a rebellion against the U.S. government, or when the president is unable to execute federal laws using regular resources. The Trump administration had deployed thousands of guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, citing "numerous incidents of violence and disorder" following U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps, and characterizing the protests as "a form of rebellion." California subsequently sued the administration two days after the deployment began, leading to the initial injunction by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, which returned control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.

This decision by the Ninth Circuit underscores a critical limitation on presidential authority to federalize state military forces, establishing a high legal threshold for invoking 'rebellion' under federal statute. While the federal government had initially appealed Judge Breyer's order, and the Ninth Circuit had, for a brief period, stayed the injunction and granted the president broad discretion if his ability to execute federal law was "significantly impeded," the landscape shifted dramatically after the Supreme Court's Chicago ruling. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur had previously argued before the Ninth Circuit that the president possessed unreviewable discretion in deploying the National Guard, but this argument predated the Supreme Court's clarification on Title 10.

California Governor Gavin Newsom lauded the ruling, stating it was "a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy." He further characterized the court's decision as a "complete rejection of Donald’s Trump illegal, authoritarian takeover of our state’s National Guard." The Ninth Circuit's judgment reinforces that presidential power to federalize the National Guard, particularly in response to civil unrest, is not absolute and is subject to stringent legal review, requiring clear evidence of a genuine rebellion rather than mere sporadic disorder.

This ruling clarifies the high legal bar for a president to federalize the National Guard under Title 10, limiting executive power in responding to civil unrest. Lawyers advising state governments, civil liberties organizations, or entities involved in public order issues should note this precedent regarding presidential authority and the definition of 'rebellion'.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service.