Appeals Court Grants Trump Control of California National Guard in Major Legal Victory
A federal appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key victory in his ongoing legal battle with California officials, allowing him to retain control over the state’s National Guard units deployed in Los Angeles. The decision marks a pivotal moment in the tense standoff between the White House and California’s Democratic leadership, which has repeatedly clashed with Trump’s use of federal authority within the state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday issued an emergency stay reversing an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had declared that Trump’s order to federalize elements of the California National Guard was unconstitutional. The appellate court’s decision means that, for now, the Guard will remain under Trump’s federal command as security operations continue in Los Angeles and surrounding areas.
Trump celebrated the ruling on his social media platform, Truth Social, calling it a “huge win for law and order.”
“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities — in this case, Los Angeles — safe,” Trump wrote. “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”
The Legal Battle Over Federal Authority
The legal dispute began earlier this month when California Governor Gavin Newsom and state officials filed a lawsuit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense. The lawsuit claimed that Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority by deploying National Guard troops and Marines to assist federal agents during escalating protests and immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles.
Judge Breyer sided with California, arguing that the president’s move violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. In his written opinion, Breyer asserted that Trump “acted both beyond the scope of his statutory authority and in contravention of the constitutional principle of federalism.”
The judge ordered that the Guard be placed back under Newsom’s command but delayed the order for 48 hours to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration moved swiftly, filing an emergency motion that the 9th Circuit Court agreed to hear the same evening. Within hours, the court issued a temporary stay, keeping Trump’s directive in effect pending further review.
Federal Justification for the Deployment
According to administration officials, the federalization of the Guard was necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, federal courthouses, and other government facilities that had become targets during large demonstrations. Officials cited instances of vandalism, arson, and attacks on law enforcement in downtown Los Angeles as justification for the intervention.
White House spokesperson Sarah Matthews defended the president’s decision, saying, “The president has an obligation to ensure that federal property and personnel are protected. When local leaders refuse to maintain order, the federal government must step in. The National Guard’s presence has been critical in restoring stability to Los Angeles.”
The move, however, ignited fierce backlash from California Democrats and civil liberties groups, who accused Trump of using the Guard as a political tool. “This is not about safety — this is about control,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta, who joined the lawsuit against the administration. “California does not need federal troops patrolling our streets.”
Pelosi’s Constitutional Misstep
The political firestorm surrounding the case intensified after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made headlines for invoking a non-existent constitutional article during a press conference.
“I hope the president would read Article 10 of the Constitution,” Pelosi said while flanked by several Democratic lawmakers. “Section 12046 of Article 10 clearly states that the National Guard cannot be called up by the president without the consent of the governor.”
Legal scholars and commentators quickly pointed out that there is no “Article 10” in the U.S. Constitution. The document contains only seven articles. Pelosi was apparently referring to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a section of federal law that governs the organization and deployment of the military, including the National Guard when federalized.
While Pelosi’s comment drew ridicule from conservative circles, it underscored broader confusion about the limits of presidential power over state military forces. Under Title 10, the president does have authority to federalize the National Guard in cases involving national emergencies or threats to federal interests — though courts have occasionally disputed the scope of that authority.
Trump’s Broader Law-and-Order Agenda
The California case is the latest episode in Trump’s broader campaign to assert federal control over security matters in cities that he and his allies claim have been “mismanaged by radical local leaders.” In recent months, Trump has deployed Guard and federal personnel in multiple states, citing threats to public safety and federal property.
Supporters say the measures have curbed violence and lawlessness, while critics accuse the administration of undermining state sovereignty.
“Trump’s approach is confrontational but effective,” said Dr. Alan Reeves, a political analyst at Georgetown University. “He’s using every legal avenue available to demonstrate that public order and national security take precedence over state politics.”
Reeves added that the 9th Circuit’s temporary stay “sends a signal that courts are at least open to the argument that the president’s national security powers extend to protecting federal operations, even within individual states.”
What Happens Next
The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for next Tuesday, when both sides will present their cases. Legal experts expect the hearing to focus on whether Trump’s invocation of Title 10 was justified by circumstances in Los Angeles or whether it represented an overreach of executive power.
If the appellate panel upholds Trump’s authority, it could set a new precedent for federal intervention in state-controlled military forces. Conversely, a ruling against the administration could limit the president’s ability to deploy the Guard without state approval in future emergencies.
Governor Newsom responded to the ruling with defiance, vowing to continue fighting the order. “California will not be bullied into submission,” he said in a statement. “We believe in the rule of law, and we will continue to defend our constitutional rights in court.”
Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials have reported a visible reduction in unrest since Guard units began assisting federal agents downtown. “Their presence has helped deter violence,” said LAPD Chief Michel Moore. “Whether you agree with the politics or not, the deployment has had an immediate impact.”
Trump’s Reaction and Political Implications
For Trump, the court’s decision offers both a legal and political boost. With the 2026 midterms approaching, the ruling reinforces his image as a strong leader focused on security and order. “We’re not going to let our cities burn,” Trump said in a follow-up Truth Social post. “This is about keeping Americans safe and enforcing the law — period.”
Political observers note that the confrontation with California mirrors earlier battles between the Trump administration and blue-state governors during his first term, from immigration policy to pandemic response.
“Trump has always thrived on conflict with Democratic leaders,” said Reeves. “This latest case fits perfectly into his narrative of fighting for control against what he sees as a defiant and dysfunctional establishment.”
Conclusion
The appeals court’s ruling represents a rare and significant win for Trump in his continuing efforts to assert federal authority over states resistant to his policies. While the final outcome of the legal battle remains uncertain, the decision temporarily solidifies his control of the California National Guard — and underscores the broader struggle between Washington and state governments over power, security, and political identity.
As the case proceeds, both sides are preparing for what could become a defining moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power in modern America.