Decision by the 9th Circuit Court
A federal appeals court recently decided that President Trump’s order to deploy 4,000 members of the California National Guard to Los Angeles was an unlawful exercise of his power. The ruling, which came from a divided panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reiterates already established precedent from a decision in December by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the illegal federalization of the Illinois National Guard.
Background and Reactions
The court’s 2-1 decision rejected Trump’s claim that a supposed “rebellion” in Los Angeles justified the federalization of the National Guard. The judges stated that this assertion did not fall within what could be considered an “honest judgment.” The Trump administration had previously argued that violent protests in downtown Los Angeles and demonstrations over immigration warranted the transfer of control from Governor Gavin Newsom to the federal government.
Governor Newsom commented on the ruling, emphasizing its importance for upholding the Constitution and safeguarding democracy. He expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy. California stood up against this potential overreach and established vital legal precedent that not only benefits Californians but all Americans.” Newsom added that California remains vigilant against any infringement upon democratic norms.
Formerly, the 9th Circuit had sided with the Trump administration, asserting that calling the troops into service for 60 days was lawful for the protection of federal personnel and property. However, the court later disputed the administration’s stance that the president’s federalization of the California National Guard was immune from judicial scrutiny. Ultimately, the panel concluded that the legal criteria for deploying the guard had not been met.
Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Biden, noted, “Defendants have not made either of the required threshold showings here. Thus, they have not carried their burden.” In contrast, Judge Mark Bennett, nominated by Trump, dissented with a view that the panel should not have adjudicated the case, as the Trump administration wished to retract its appeal regarding the lower court’s ruling for a preliminary injunction against the deployment of the National Guard.
The U.S. Justice Department did not respond when prompted for comments on this ruling.
