National Guard Will Stay Under Trump's Control, Currently in the 9th Circuit Court

In a late-night order Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suspended a court order that required President Trump to return control of the thousands of California National Guards in Los Angeles to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The 9th Circuit's emergency stay hours came in San Francisco's U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump violated the law while mobilizing thousands of guard members in protests on immigration attacks and had to return troops to state control by noon Friday.

A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit, which includes two Trump-appointed judges and one appointed by President Biden, is scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday, meaning the National Guard will conduct federal services over the weekend.

In a 36-page U.S. District Court ruling, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions were “illegal, both beyond his legal authority and in violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Breyer added that he “has troubled by the meaning” the Trump administration’s argument inherent that “protesting the federal government is a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment can justify the discovery of the rebellion.”

Newsom, which filed the lawsuit with California, called the ruling a “win for all Americans.”

“Today is actually about the test of democracy, and today we pass the test,” Newsom told reporters in a building located in the California Supreme Court of San Francisco.

The ruling, California. General Rob Bonta told reporters, “A key early sign shows that the court saw the merits of our argument after a quick review of the facts in our case.”

“We are not the pain of rebellion,” Bonta said. “We are not threatened by an invasion. There is nothing to stop the federal government from enforcing federal laws. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend did not guarantee the deployment of the military, and their arrival would only incite the situation.”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal later Thursday.

During a hearing with Breyer, the judge seemed skeptical of the Justice Department's argument that the court could not question whether the president's judgment on key legal issues, including whether protests and unrest in Los Angeles pose a “danger of rebellion or rebellion.”

“We are talking about the president's exercise of his authority, and of course, the president's authority is limited,” Breyer said. “That's the difference between the president and King George.”

Trump and the White House argue that under Armed Forces Section 10406, 12406, military mobilization is legal, if “there is a rebellion or danger of insurgency or rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, which gives the president the authority to the Federal National Guard.”

“The protests in Los Angeles are far from 'rebellion',” Breyer wrote. He said there were some violence, but the Trump administration did not determine “a violent, armed, organized, open, open and declared an uprising against the administration.”

“The evidence is overwhelming, and protesters gather to protest a problem – immigration attacks,” Breyer wrote.

Title 10 also requires the president to “issued through the governors of the states” order.

As governor, Newsom is the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard. The state's complaint said last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memorandum to the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members before sending the memorandum to Newsom's office. Neither Newsom nor his office agreed to the mobilization, the lawsuit said.

Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday asking him to revoke his troops' deployment. The letter said the mobilization was a “serious violation of state sovereignty, which seemed to be intentional inciting the situation, while depriving the deployment of these personnel and resources that the state really needed.”

“I'm trying to figure out how someone goes through 'someone' and if you don't actually send it to him.” “As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, will it go through?”

But Breyer is less willing to participate in the legality of Trump's deployment of the U.S. Marine Corps to Los Angeles. California attorneys noted that the plan is to ease and replace guards within the next 24 hours.

The protests emerged in Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of lightning strikes carried out by immigrants and customs law enforcement officers across the county. A few agitators of the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added active Marines to Monday's action. Protests and some sporadic violent riots have continued since the deployment.

Trump said mobilization is necessary to “respond to violence, incited riots” and without the National Guard, “Los Angeles will be completely eliminated.”

Breyer said the Trump administration has identified “some wandering incidents related to the protests” and from that point on, he said: “Boldly claiming state and local officials are unable to control the thugs.”

“As long as the state is not satisfied with the strong or swift attitude of the state to enforce its own laws, it is not the position of the federal government in our constitutional system,” Breyer wrote.

Attorney General from 18 other states and Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein-Soto supports California’s position in the case.

Wilner reported from Washington, D.C. Huang from San Francisco and Nelson from Los Angeles.