Los Angeles turned chaotic a few weeks ago, when protests over federal immigration raids grew violent. Protesters hurled bricks, fireworks, and Molotov cocktails at federal officers, vandalized buildings, and trapped agents in vehicles. President Trump took control of 4,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal property and personnel. Governor Gavin Newsom sued, calling the move illegal and risky. A lower court briefly blocked Trump’s order, but on June 19, the Ninth Circuit reversed that, keeping the Guard under federal command.
Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller, and Jennifer Sung ruled Trump likely had the legal right to federalize the Guard under a law allowing it when federal forces can’t enforce U.S. laws. They cited attacks on agents and damaged buildings as evidence of serious disruptions. Relying on a 1827 case, the court said presidents get wide leeway in such decisions. This gives Trump a victory but sparks concerns about unchecked power over state resources.
Newsom argued Trump didn’t follow the law’s requirement to work through the governor. The court disagreed, noting the order went to California’s Adjutant General, who acts for the governor. Even if the process was flawed, the judges said it didn’t justify halting the deployment. Governors can’t block the President here, weakening Newsom’s claim that California’s control was disregarded. There is no doubt that this is a political win for the President, and really undercuts Newson, whose argument that Trump is overstepping his authority, when a three judge panel puts on the brakes from a single-judge ruling in Newsom’s favor.
This ruling keeps 4,000 troops in L.A. for now, with a bigger court fight set for June 20. Newsom warns the Guard’s presence could escalate tensions, but the court called that speculative. For those who value limited government, this case raises alarms: federal power overrode state control, potentially paving the way for more executive overreach. It’s not about immigration—it’s about who holds the reins.
This case matters deeply, wrestling with the clash between federal law’s dominance and the principle of federalism—states’ rights to govern themselves. As it winds through the criminal justice system, it will test how we balance national authority with local control. We must stay vigilant, demanding a government that respects clear boundaries and shared power, not one that tilts the scales too far. I wouldn’t be surprised if this case ultimately finds it’s way to the Supreme Court.
Here is a link to the ruling.
