President Trump didn’t have good enough justifications when he federalized and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE protests last year, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, said the president was wrong to equate the protests to a “rebellion” and to say regular forces weren’t enough to handle things.
“The order exceeded the president’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’ calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” wrote Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, for the majority in the 2-1 decision.
People were interested in these podcasts
The court said it was following in the footsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court, which blocked Mr. Trump’s attempt to deploy guard troops to the Chicago area to quell similar protests.
The 9th Circuit previously allowed a lower court ruling halting the deployment to remain in effect. Friday’s ruling was a more complete decision to back that lower court’s preliminary injunction.
The protests erupted in June 2025 after Los Angeles became the first focus of Mr. Trump’s mass deportation campaign.
Crowds clashed with federal and local officers and tried to blockade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities.
Hundreds of protesters would ultimately be arrested.
Mr. Trump federalized California National Guard troops and sent them to restore order. He also deployed active-duty Marines.
At the peak, there were 4,000 guard troops and 700 Marines.
The protests dissipated, but the legal battle raged, with Mr. Trump keeping some of the troops in place through January, when the last were withdrawn in compliance with court orders.
Mr. Trump had justified his deployment by calling the protests a rebellion and by saying the “regular” forces weren’t sufficient.
The Supreme Court, in its opinion about the Chicago deployment, said Mr. Trump had to show that the regular military wasn’t sufficient in order to be able to federalize a state’s guard.
Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, dissented from Friday’s ruling.
“The circumstances under which the president can federalize members of a state’s National Guard is a question of tremendous consequence and national importance. But it is not a question that must — or should — be resolved by this panel today,” he wrote.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.