Federal Appeals Court Signals Support for Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles

by Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Staff

(Worthy News) – A federal appeals court appeared poised Tuesday to uphold President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to restore order after violent protests, casting doubt on California’s legal challenge to the move.

During a hearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel expressed skepticism over California Governor Gavin Newsom’s argument that Trump overstepped his authority by sending in the Guard without state consent. The deployment was ordered earlier this month after demonstrators clashed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and attempted to breach a federal detention facility.

Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Biden, pointed to Supreme Court precedents granting broad discretion to the president in determining when an emergency justifies such a deployment. “Congress was essentially giving the president the authority — the exclusive authority — to determine the exigency existed,” she told California’s lawyer, Samuel Thomas Harbourt.

The other judges on the panel, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, both appointed by Trump, echoed similar doubts about California’s legal position. They questioned whether Trump’s order needed Governor Newsom’s approval, given that it was transmitted through the state’s adjutant general, who represents the governor under California law.

Brett Shumate, representing the Justice Department, defended the deployment, saying the Guard remains essential to ICE operations more than a week after unrest erupted. He urged the court to block a lower court ruling that declared the deployment unconstitutional. “If this order goes into effect, it will be putting lives at risk,” Shumate said.

California, meanwhile, argued that Trump’s action was an unprecedented assertion of federal power. Harbourt warned that Trump’s order had no clear limits on troop numbers or scope. “That is staggeringly broad,” he said. “It is plainly unlawful, inconsistent with our nation’s traditions.”

The dispute arose after Trump ordered National Guard troops into Los Angeles on June 7, following violent attempts to obstruct ICE deportation operations. The deployment, which expanded as unrest grew, now includes over 4,000 Guard soldiers, hundreds of Marines, and more than 380 vehicles supporting federal agents.

ICE officials said the Guard’s presence has been critical. In one incident over the weekend, Guard troops helped clear a path for ICE vans transporting 130 migrants after protesters blocked their way.

California officials contend that the deployment undermines local priorities, such as wildfire preparedness, and burdens lawful protests. They pointed to a declaration from a Mexican lawyers’ group that said it altered its march route to avoid Guard-secured federal buildings, claiming their rights were hindered.

Governor Newsom has framed the legal fight as a defense against “authoritarianism,” arguing the president should not override a state’s ability to manage its own public safety. But the appeals court’s questioning suggests Trump’s deployment may ultimately survive this high-stakes constitutional test.

Latest Worthy News