The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize roughly 4,000 members of the California National Guard and deploy them to the Los Angeles area last year was an unlawful exercise of his authority.
The three-judge panel, sitting in San Francisco, issued a 2-1 decision finding that the administration did not meet the legal standards required to federalize the state guard. The majority relied in part on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December that held the president’s federalization of the Illinois National Guard was unlawful.
“Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution and defending democracy,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.
The ruling rejected the administration’s contention that a rebellion in Los Angeles justified taking control of the guard from the governor. The court said the government’s argument that such a rebellion existed did not fall within a “range of honest judgment,” and that the required threshold showings to federalize the troops were not satisfied, Judge Jennifer Sung wrote for the majority.
What the court found
- The panel concluded the administration failed to meet the legal requirements for federalizing state National Guard forces.
- The court applied the Supreme Court’s precedent on the federalization of the Illinois National Guard in its analysis.
- Judge Jennifer Sung authored the majority opinion; Trump-nominated Judge Mark Bennett dissented.
Previously in the litigation the appeals court had agreed with the administration on a narrower point, finding that the president acted within the law when he called the troops into federal service for a 60-day period “to protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property.” But the panel disagreed with the administration’s separate contention that the president’s decision to federalize the California Guard was insulated from judicial review.
Gov. Newsom, a Democrat, said California’s challenge created legal precedent that he said protects residents and preserves limits on executive power. In his statement he described the court’s decision as a complete rejection of what he called an “illegal, authoritarian takeover” of the state’s guard.
The administration argued that violent demonstrations tied to an immigration crackdown in downtown Los Angeles and other locations warranted federalizing the guard. The appeals court held that the administration did not satisfy the statutory and constitutional criteria for such a federal takeover.
Judge Mark Bennett filed a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s conclusions. The panel’s split decision leaves in place a legal rebuke to the administration’s deployment authority in this instance and follows the Supreme Court’s recent limitations on federalization powers applied in the Illinois case.
The case will remain part of a broader set of disputes over the scope of presidential authority to federalize state military forces and the role of federal courts in reviewing those decisions.
