On June 20, 2025, a U.S. appeals court issued a landmark ruling, allowing former President Donald Trump to maintain control over the California National Guard. This decision was made despite significant opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had challenged the federal deployment of National Guard troops to manage protests in Los Angeles. The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between state and federal authorities, particularly regarding the role of military forces in domestic matters.
The Dispute: National Guard Control
The origins of the legal conflict date back to the summer of 2024 when widespread protests erupted in Los Angeles. These protests, spurred by contentious police actions, led to large-scale civil unrest. In response to the growing violence and unrest, President Trump authorized the federal government to deploy California National Guard troops to assist local law enforcement in restoring order.
Governor Gavin Newsom vehemently opposed the federal deployment, arguing that the National Guard should remain under the state’s control. California law and the U.S. Constitution generally assign the authority to activate the National Guard to state governors, with the understanding that such forces would only be used under federal command in exceptional circumstances, such as when national security is directly threatened. Newsom contended that the deployment was an overreach of federal authority and that it violated the state’s right to manage its own resources.
The Legal Challenge and Court Ruling
In the months following the deployment, Newsom’s administration filed a legal challenge against the federal government, asking the court to rule that the California National Guard could not be used for purposes that did not meet the constitutional criteria for federal intervention. The case quickly made its way through the courts, with the Governor and state officials arguing that the decision to send National Guard troops should lie solely within the state’s jurisdiction, especially in a time of internal civil unrest.
However, on June 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the federal government, affirming President Trump’s right to maintain control over the National Guard during this deployment. The court’s decision was based on existing legal precedents, including the Insurrection Act, which gives the President broad authority to deploy military forces in domestic matters, particularly when public safety or national security is at risk.
The ruling also referenced several instances in history where federal forces were deployed to manage unrest, suggesting that the President’s authority to call upon the National Guard transcends the traditional state-level control that governors typically hold. The court ultimately sided with the notion that the federal government can, in certain cases, override state decisions when the need for national security or public safety is deemed essential.
State vs. Federal Authority: A Tension Reignited
This case underscores a perennial tension between state and federal powers in the United States, especially when it comes to the use of military forces within the country. Over the years, the National Guard has served as a symbol of state sovereignty, with governors traditionally retaining control over these forces. However, there are numerous federal statutes, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of federal military personnel in domestic law enforcement but does not extend to the National Guard, creating a unique legal gray area.
While the appeals court’s decision is seen as a victory for the federal government, it also raises important questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities. Governor Newsom, along with several constitutional law experts, expressed concerns that this ruling sets a concerning precedent, potentially eroding the traditional role of state governments in managing their own National Guard units. There is a legitimate fear that, should future presidents follow this precedent, they may seek to exert greater control over National Guard units across the nation.
For some critics, the ruling signals the growing federal encroachment on state powers, especially in matters where local governments might believe they are best equipped to handle situations like protests, civil unrest, or natural disasters. As tensions between states and the federal government continue to rise, many observers are now closely monitoring how other states will respond to similar situations in the future.
The Broader Implications of the Ruling
While this ruling is focused on the control of California’s National Guard, it has far-reaching implications for how other states may handle similar conflicts. Legal experts suggest that the decision could pave the way for future presidential administrations to assert more power over state-controlled National Guard units, especially in times of civil unrest or national security threats.
This case may also signal a shift in how future presidents approach the deployment of military resources within U.S. borders. If the federal government continues to exercise greater control over state military forces, it could reshape the role of the National Guard in domestic operations, potentially altering the relationship between federal and state governments.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling on June 20, 2025, to allow President Trump to maintain control over the California National Guard highlights the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. As protests and civil unrest continue to emerge across the U.S., this decision may set a precedent for future legal battles and government actions. The use of National Guard forces in domestic matters will likely remain a highly contested issue, with states challenging federal control as they seek to assert their rights in managing their own resources. As the nation grapples with these constitutional tensions, it is clear that the future of the National Guard’s role in domestic matters will remain a central issue in the ongoing debate over the proper scope of federal power.