Trump can keep National Guard in Los Angeles for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump can keep the California National Guard in Los Angeles for now, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday evening, delivering a win for the president as he aims to use the military to police protests against his deportation efforts.
The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — two of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term and the third appointed by President Joe Biden — said that Trump appears to have lawfully deployed the National Guard in the city, even though he did not consult California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
The narrow order was issued on an emergency basis so that the federal government could quickly know whether it was allowed to keep the National Guard in place while litigation on the matter continues. A hearing Friday afternoon in a lower court will examine the broader question of when and how a president is allowed to deploy a state’s National Guard.
On social media, Trump hailed the appeals court decision as a “BIG WIN” and suggested that it would open the door for similar deployments across the United States if he determines that local law enforcement is “unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.”
The San Francisco-based appeals court overturned a lower court order that said Trump had probably overstepped with the deployment and should return control of the Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
The Trump administration quickly appealed that decision, saying that the protesters prevented federal law enforcement from carrying out their duties related to deportations and it was within his executive authority to call the National Guard.
The appeals panel disagreed with the federal government’s stance that Trump’s authority to deploy the National Guard could not be scrutinized by the courts. But the judges also rejected California’s legal argument that a federal statute clearly requires a governor to be consulted before the deployment — rather than just having the president route the deployment command through the governor.
In the end, the court ruled that the president showed that he had at least some reason to believe that protesters interfered with federal law enforcement’s ability to carry out their deportation-related duties and that deploying the National Guard was necessary.
The opinion cited evidence from both sides that protesters in Los Angeles threw objects at Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicles, used commercial dumpsters to breach the parking garage of a federal building and vandalized property.
“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard,” the opinion states.
The appeals judges said that once the case is fully litigated, Trump is likely to win the argument over what a president must do to deploy a state’s National Guard, which is why they are allowing the National Guard to remain in place for now.
Trump had called up to 4,100 National Guard members and Marines in response to protests that swelled in parts of Los Angeles over the president’s immigration deportation policies.
In filings, California officials conceded that the protests had on occasion turned violent, but said that thousands of state and local law enforcement officials were more than capable of responding to any disturbances. The state said no other president had ever deployed the state’s National Guard over the governor’s objections.
The filings sought to restrict what the National Guard and Marines could do in Los Angeles and argued that the troops should only be allowed to protect federal facilities and personnel.
Demonstrations already have dwindled in Los Angeles, with law enforcement outnumbering protesters on some days. But the question in front of the court — which could reach the Supreme Court — could determine how and whether Trump wields state National Guards if demonstrations against his administration continue.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer previously sided with California, ruling that the president acted illegally in dispatching the troops, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Before Breyer’s order went into effect, the appeals court panel said in an emergency order that could remain on Los Angeles streets while it considered the case.
—
• Frances Vinall and Jintak Han contributed.