In a dramatic turn of events, a federal appeals court has intervened mere hours after a lower court ruled that President Donald Trump must hand back control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on the previous ruling on June 12, effectively reinstating Trump’s authority over the National Guard, which had been under his command during a period of social unrest in Los Angeles.
This legal back-and-forth illustrates the ongoing tug-of-war between state and federal powers. Just hours earlier, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had mandated that Trump return control of the National Guard to Newsom, citing the president’s actions as illegal and a violation of both statutory authority and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Breyer’s ruling followed a hearing that delved into the legality of Trump’s federalization of the National Guard amidst protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The crux of the matter was whether Trump had the legal grounds to federalize the National Guard under current federal law.
During court proceedings, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate contended that Trump was acting within his rights and that the judge lacked the authority to review presidential actions. In contrast, California’s attorney Nicholas Green argued that the administration’s interpretation of federal power was excessively broad.
At the heart of Newsom’s lawsuit was Section 12406 of the law, which stipulates that presidential control of the National Guard must involve a directive through state governors. Shumate dismissed this concern, labeling Newsom merely as a “conduit,” asserting that no consultation with the governor was necessary.
Newsom countered, arguing that genuine consultation with the governor is implied in the law, highlighting that Trump’s actions encroach upon the governor’s jurisdiction over state law enforcement.
Judge Breyer scrutinized whether Trump’s federalization order adhered to legal requirements regarding communication with the governor. The order was sent to the adjutant general, who oversees the state’s National Guard, but Breyer noted that this might not fulfill the legal criteria established by federal law.
Breyer’s opinion pointed out that Trump’s directive did not comply with the statutory mandate to issue orders through the governor. He expressed skepticism about the legality of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s memo, which claimed to bypass the governor entirely. Breyer warned that the administration’s approach could disrupt the constitutional balance of power and set a troubling precedent for future domestic military engagements.
The judge’s ruling did not directly affect the Marines, who are expected to replace some National Guard members in California. Breyer also noted that Trump’s actions could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement.
Joseph Lord contributed to this report.
If you found this article engaging, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times delivers fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have faced threats, arrests, and violence, yet our commitment to independent journalism remains steadfast. This year marks our 25th anniversary of reporting free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why we invite you to take advantage of a limited-time offer — just $1 per week — to join millions celebrating independent news.
