Appeals court rules 2-1 that Trump lacked authority to federalize California Guard for Los Angeles

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday, Oct. 23, 2026, upheld a lower court’s order barring President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying California National Guard members in Los Angeles and directing it to return control of the Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The panel held that the president’s June 2025 order calling 4,000 Guard members into federal service for 60 days exceeded his authority under federal law and violated the constitutional separation of powers.¹

Judge Jennifer Sung wrote the 96-page opinion in Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727. Judge Eric D. Miller joined it and wrote a concurrence; Judge Mark J. Bennett dissented.¹

What the court decided

The appeal concerned a June 2025 temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco. The panel stayed that order on June 19, 2025, finding then that the president likely acted within his authority.¹

The majority said the Supreme Court’s December 2025 order in Trump v. Illinois changed that analysis. Under that decision, the opinion says, the president may federalize the Guard under the provision allowing it when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” only after showing he has authority to use the regular military to execute the laws and cannot do so with it. The panel found the administration made neither showing.¹²

The panel also rejected the administration’s alternative argument that conditions in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, amounted to “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.” The opinion acknowledges that “there were bad actors who committed serious breaches of the peace and acts of violence,” but cites the district court’s finding of “no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence.” It concluded that California was likely to succeed on its Tenth Amendment claim as well.¹

Miller wrote that the administration forfeited its argument that California could not bring this type of claim. Bennett wrote that he would not have decided the appeal, saying the parties had given the court only “scant briefing” on the Illinois decision and the case could have returned to the district court for trial. He also wrote that California’s Tenth Amendment claim is unlikely to succeed.¹

The request to drop the appeal

The Justice Department moved to dismiss the appeal on Jan. 23, 2026, and the panel denied that motion in a separate order filed the same day as the opinion.¹ In a Feb. 4 filing, the department wrote that about 4,000 Guard members and 800 Marines were sent to the Los Angeles area in June 2025, that 300 Guard members remained less than two months later and about 100 by December, and that “the challenged federalization and deployment have ended.” It asked the court to respect its decision not to keep challenging the injunctions.² Newsom’s office said on Dec. 31, 2025, that the Ninth Circuit had returned the Guard to state control that day.³

The responses

Newsom said in a statement that “today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy.”⁴⁵ California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office argued the case, called the deployment “a clear example of federal overreach.”⁶¹

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, FOX 11 Los Angeles reported, citing City News Service.⁵ Bloomberg Law reported that the ruling has little immediate practical effect because the deployment ended in December 2025.⁷

What the records do not show

• No response from the White House or the Defense Department was found as of Oct. 24.
• The order denying the motion to dismiss, and Bennett’s dissent from it, were not available to SignalData; this story relies on the opinion’s description of them.¹
• The opinion does not say whether the administration will seek rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or review by the Supreme Court.¹