A federal appeals court in San Francisco just threw a major wrench into what was shaping up to be one of the most significant showdowns between a president and a governor since the civil rights era. The legal battle over who controls California's National Guard took a dramatic turn Thursday when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that would have yanked military control away from President Trump and handed it back to Governor Gavin Newsom.
The constitutional crisis began brewing just days earlier when CNBC reported that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer—yes, brother of the retired Supreme Court Justice—delivered a scathing 36-page ruling calling Trump's deployment of 4,000 California National Guard troops "illegal." According to MSNBC, Judge Breyer found the federalization violated both federal law and the Tenth Amendment. But that victory was short-lived—the appeals court's administrative stay means Trump keeps control of the troops, at least for now.
When Immigration Protests Met Presidential Power
The whole mess started June 6-7 when large-scale ICE operations in Los Angeles triggered community protests that ABC7 Los Angeles described as drawing hundreds of demonstrators to downtown streets. Trump's response was swift and unprecedented—he issued a presidential memorandum federalizing National Guard personnel under a rarely-used federal statute. As CalMatters reported, the deployment quickly expanded to include not just 2,000 Guard troops but an additional 700 Marines from Camp Pendleton.
The president's justification? The White House claimed the protests constituted "a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." That's a pretty serious accusation—and one that legal experts say doesn't hold water. According to Just Security, the deployment represents "dangerous and legally doubtful" use of presidential emergency powers.
The Players in This Political Drama
Governor Newsom didn't waste time firing back. His office announced he was suing Trump and the Department of Defense for what he called an "illegal takeover" of the California Guard. "There is no invasion, there is no rebellion," Attorney General Rob Bonta argued, as reported by CBS News. The state's top law enforcement official accused the president of trying to "manufacture chaos" for political gain.
The Trump administration pushed back hard. CNBC noted that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called California's lawsuit a "crass political stunt endangering American lives." Meanwhile, Los Angeles found itself caught in the crossfire—Mayor Karen Bass initially opposed the deployment, but Police Chief Jim McDonnell later reassessed his position as protests escalated. According to NBC News, the city ultimately imposed an 8 p.m. curfew covering a one-square-mile downtown area after more than 400 arrests.
Why This Case Matters Way Beyond California
Here's the thing that has constitutional law experts genuinely worried: this represents the first time since 1965 that a president has federalized state National Guard units over a governor's objections. The Washington Post notes that the last comparable case was President Lyndon Johnson's deployment of troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators—though that deployment eventually gained gubernatorial cooperation. The 1992 Los Angeles riots provide a stark contrast, as Reuters reported, President H.W. Bush federalized California's National Guard at Governor Pete Wilson's explicit request.
The legal requirements for federalization under 10 U.S.C. Section 12406 are pretty specific, and that's where Judge Breyer found Trump's actions fell short. According to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, the law requires one of three conditions: foreign invasion, rebellion against federal authority, or the president's inability to execute laws with regular forces. The statute also requires federal orders to be issued "through the governors"—a procedural requirement the Trump administration allegedly ignored by failing to consult Newsom.
The Bigger Immigration Enforcement Picture
This California showdown doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's part of a much larger story about how immigration enforcement is reshaping federal-state relations. The Hill reported that the Department of Homeland Security has requested 20,000 National Guard troops nationwide for immigration enforcement in 2025. That represents the first time Guard units would be directly involved in interior enforcement operations rather than just border security.
Texas has been leading the charge with Operation Lone Star since 2021, deploying up to 10,000 National Guard troops at costs exceeding $11.2 billion, as documented by the Migration Policy Institute. The January 2024 Eagle Pass standoff saw Texas National Guard block federal Border Patrol access, with 25 Republican governors supporting Texas's position in what legal experts warned could become a constitutional crisis. ABC News noted that the Supreme Court ultimately sided with federal authorities, but the tensions remain.
What Happens Next
The appeals hearing scheduled for June 17, 2025, will determine whether Trump keeps control of California's Guard while the substantive legal questions get hashed out. CBS News reported that a three-judge panel including two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee will review Judge Breyer's ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union has announced plans to file a separate lawsuit, while Hoodline reported that 21 state attorneys general have filed briefs supporting California's position.
The stakes couldn't be higher. As the Brennan Center for Justice warned, this case raises fundamental questions about American federalism and the separation of powers that could influence policy debates far beyond immigration enforcement. Former military leaders have submitted an amicus brief opposing the deployment, arguing it violates traditional civil-military relations principles, according to PBS NewsHour.
Whether this constitutional showdown ends with a landmark Supreme Court case or gets resolved through political negotiations, one thing's clear: the balance between presidential emergency powers and state sovereignty rights is being tested in ways we haven't seen in decades. And California finds itself at the center of a national debate that will likely shape federal-state relations for years to come.
