The legal battle on the deployment of the National Guard of the Trump Administration in California continued in a Federal Appeals Court on Tuesday, where a panel of judges indicated that they could only have a limited power to govern against the president’s power to deploy troops.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals presided over a remote hearing on California’s challenge to the federalization of President Donald Trump of the State National Guard troops in the midst of protests for the application of immigration in the Los Angeles area.
The National Guard troops use gas masks during protests against federal immigration sweeps, in Los Angeles, on June 12, 2025.
David Swanson/Reuters
The hearing of an hour was held before a panel of the Court of Appeals of three Judges, composed of two judges nominated by Trump and one nominated by former President Joe Biden.
Brett Shumate, which represents the Federal Government, said the Court of Appeals should grant the Trump administration application for a suspension of the order of a lower court, which would have blocked Trump’s continuous deployment of the troops and returned the control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom, which did not consent to the activation of the Guard.
Shumate said that the “extraordinary” court order, which was suspended by the Court of Appeals, interferes with the commanders of the chief president and “returns to the military command chain.”
Shumate argued that Trump acted to his discretion by calling the National Guard “based on his determination that violent disturbances in Los Angeles constituted a rebellion against the authority of the United States and made him unable to execute federal laws.”
He continued: “However, the District Court inappropriately envied the president’s judgment on the need to call the guard to protect federal property and the staff of the violence of the mafia in Los Angeles.”
Shumate also argued that Trump has “non -reviewable” powers as commander in chief to deploy troops as he considers appropriate for any reason.
Meanwhile, Samuel Harbor, the lawyer who represents the State of California and Newsom, asked the Court of Appeals to deny the motion of the federal government, qualifying the federalization of the National Guard as an “unprecedented and illegal” executive action.
“Without a doubt, the angels have seen certain episodes of disturbances and even violence in recent days, including violence aimed at officials responsible for enforcing state and local law. The State has strongly condemned these acts, and has responded forcefully to them,” he said, going to which the federal government did not provide evidence that “even more modest measures are measure Argument of the Guard and the Miloría “.
Harbourt said that diverting thousands of men from the National Guard for a deployment of up to 60 days away from “critical work” such as forest fire prevention and drug interdiction, challenges state sovereignty and “would allow the defendants to increase tensions” in Los Angeles.
When asked why the Court should have the power about the decision of a president to deploy troops, Harbourt tried to quote other cases, but the judges said they were not applied in this case. The judges seemed to indicate that if they had any ability to review the president’s movement to federalize the National Guard, it would be limited.
Harbor also argued that Congress required a governor to be consulted before the guard deployed, but the judges also seemed skeptical about the clarity of that requirement.
The judges did not issue a ruling on Tuesday or gave any indication of when they would decide, while recognizing that the judge of the lower court, the United States district judge, Charles Breyer, established on Friday.
To send thousands of national guards to Los Angeles, Trump invoked section 12406 of Title 10 of the United States Code on armed services, allowing a federal deployment in response to a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States government.” In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal staff who perform their functions.
Breyer, the judge of the lower court, had described Trump’s actions as “illegal.”
“At this early stage of the procedures, the Court must determine if the President followed the mandatory procedure of the Congress for his actions. He did not,” Breyer said in his order of June 12 granted by the temporary restriction order requested by Newsom. “His actions were illegal, both exceeding the scope of his legal authority and violating the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, he must return the control of the California National Guard to the governor of the State of California immediately.”
The order did not limit the use of Trump of the Marines, which had also been deployed in Los Angeles.
The soldiers of Marines and the National Guard of California protect an entrance to the Federal Building of Wilshire, while standing next to a tactical vehicle of Marines, on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
At a press conference after the order of the District Court, Newsom said he was “satisfied” for the ruling, saying that he would return to the National Guard “to what they were doing before Donald Trump commanded them.”
In their appeal to the ninth circuit, the administration lawyers qualified the order of the “unprecedented” district judge and an “extraordinary intrusion in the constitutional authority of the president as a commander in chief.”
About 4,000 national and 700 marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area after protests for immigration raids. California leaders claim that Trump inflamed the protests by sending the army when it was not necessary.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, who had instituted a curfew inside the center of Los Angeles in the middle of the protests, announced on Tuesday that he was raising the measure.
“The curfew, together with the continuous efforts for crime prevention, has been successful in the protection of stores, restaurants, companies and residential communities of bad actors who do not care about the immigrant community,” Bass said in a statement. “I am raising the curfew as of today, already measure that we continue to adapt quickly to the chaos that comes from Washington, and I will be prepared to re -emit a curfew.
Alex Stone and Jack Moore of ABC News contributed to this report.
