FILE PHOTOS
LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta has vowed to appeal a federal appeals court ruling allowing President Donald Trump to temporarily maintain control of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles while the case is litigated.
The president celebrated the decision with a midnight social media post Thursday.
“BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard!,” Trump posted. “The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.
This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!”
Members of the California National Guard conduct exercises after being deployed to the Los Angeles protests Wednesday, June 11, 2025, in Los Alamitos, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
In their own post-ruling statements, Attorney General Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom Friday vowed to continue their legal challenge.
“This case is far from over,” Bonta said in a statement following the unanimous late Thursday ruling. “It is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal.”
The Filipino American attorney general said the Trump administration “far overreached its authority with its unprecedented and unlawful federalization” of the California National Guard and deployment of military troops into Los Angeles communities.
A protester taunts a line of California National Guard protecting a federal building in downtown Los Angeles on Monday, June 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer)
“As senior military leaders serving in administrations from JFK to Obama have affirmed, the use of the military on US soil should be `rare, serious, and legally clear.’ That is not the case in Los Angeles where our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the president deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing,” Bonta said.
“While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos [Thursday], we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”
In a post on Facebook, Newsom agreed and seized on the part of the ruling that rejected Trump’s argument that the president’s decision is protected from court oversight.
“We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U-S military soldiers against citizens. Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law. … the court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.”
Like the governor, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) also focused on the court’s continued review of the matter as pushback against Trump’s using the Guard as “a political weapon against Californians.
You may like: Forcible removal of Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in US democracy
“Trump’s unnecessary and counterproductive deployment of the California National Guard over the will of the governor and without coordination with local law enforcement only served to inflame tensions in Los Angeles. The court’s decision strongly reaffirms that the Guard can only be deployed in clearly defined circumstances – not as a political weapon against Californians at the sole discretion of Donald Trump.”
The appellate court order followed a hearing Tuesday in which a three-judge court panel in San Francisco appeared dubious about Newsom’s argument that Trump had failed to sufficiently justify his decision to federalize and deploy 4,000 National Guard members and 700 US Marines to protect federal buildings and support immigration authorities in Los Angeles.
The panel found that Trump acted within the law. However, the court disagreed with the Trump administration’s primary argument that the president’s decision is insulated from judicial review.
In granting Trump’s emergency motion for a stay of a lower court ruling — which called the federalization unconstitutional — pending appeal, the appellate court concluded that it is likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority to federalize the National Guard when the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
In other words, the panel found in favor of Trump’s argument that the civil unrest in downtown Los Angeles rose to such a level that local law enforcement was unable to protect federal immigration officers while they were carrying out government-ordered arrests and raids, making the military deployment necessary.
The court said the decision ultimately stems from June 6, when a group of protesters tried to prevent US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials from operating in Los Angeles by throwing objects at ICE vehicles.
Later that evening, protesters gathered at ICE’s enforcement and removal operations building downtown.
According to the case background, protesters “pinned down” several federal protective service officers and threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects” at the officers.
The protesters also used “large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram to breach the parking garage gate and damage federal property,” the order says. The Los Angeles Police Department managed to force the protesters to disperse, “but the federal building had been heavily vandalized,” an appeals judge wrote.
The next day, on June 7, protesters continued to interfere with federal enforcement operations at a Homeland Security Investigations office in Paramount, and continued to attack federal property, the document states. In a
confrontation that lasted over seven hours, the protesters blocked traffic and used shopping carts to barricade the street.
In response to incidents that included protesters throwing “mortar-style fireworks” and other items, including a Molotov cocktail at deputies, burning a vehicle and vandalizing property, Trump signed a memorandum on June 7, calling into federal service at least 2,000 members of the National Guard pursuant to his authority, the court said.
As demonstrations continued, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a second memorandum, calling into service an additional 2,000 members of the California National Guard for 60 days, for a total of 4,000 Guard members.
The same day, Newsom and Bonta filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court against Trump, Hegseth and the US Department of Defense, alleging violations of the US Constitution and the president’s authority, not only because the takeover of the Guard occurred without the consent or input othe governor, as federal law requires, but also because, Newsom argued, it was unwarranted.
On June 10, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to restore control of the National Guard to Newsom because, among other things, troops on the streets of Los Angeles “further de-stabilize the community,” Newsom argued.
Plaintiffs also urged that the deployment of the National Guard “diverts necessary state resources” because Guardmembers help fight forest fires, stop drug trafficking and protect against cyber threats.
US District Judge Charles Breyer granted the temporary restrainingorder after a hearing on June 12, finding that military on the street “inflames tensions with protesters,” and ordered control of the Guard restored to Newsom by noon the following day.
Lawyers for Trump immediately filed a notice of appeal and moved for an emergency stay pending appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. An hourlong hearing took place Tuesday, but no decision was immediately reached.
Later, the court blocked Breyer’s order, leaving the Guard under Trump’s control.
Breyer, the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, had determined the National Guard deployment was illegal and violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority. Another hearing before Breyer is scheduled for Friday. (With CNS report)
