Federal Appeals Court Allows Trump to Maintain Control of California National Guard

cnn.com/2025/06/19/politics/trump-continue-control-california-national-guard

Revised Article

A federal appeals court has allowed President Donald Trump to maintain control over approximately 4,000 California National Guard members that he federalized to address security concerns in Los Angeles during immigration enforcement protests. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted Trump's request to lift a lower court ruling that would have required him to relinquish control of the guardsmen.

The appeals court ruled that Trump likely exercised his statutory authority lawfully under federal law 10 USC 12406, rejecting arguments from California Governor Gavin Newsom that the president had violated federal procedures. The three-judge panel, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, concluded that courts must apply 'highly deferential' review to presidential military decisions.

The legal dispute originated from protests that began June 6, 2025, when ICE conducted immigration raids across Los Angeles County. The protests escalated into riots with clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement, resulting in at least 56 arrests and injuries to both police and protesters. Trump responded by deploying 300 National Guard soldiers under Title 10 authority, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilizing an additional 700 Marines as backup forces.

The core legal issue involved whether Trump followed proper procedures when federalizing the Guard. Federal law requires presidents to issue federalization orders 'through the governor,' but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered Trump's June 7 memo to California's top general rather than Governor Newsom. The appeals court determined this likely satisfied the procedural requirement since the general serves as an 'agent' of the governor.

Under current restrictions, the federalized National Guard troops and Marines cannot conduct law enforcement activities like making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. Their mission is limited to protecting federal agents and buildings. The situation in Los Angeles has since calmed significantly, though additional legal proceedings are scheduled to continue addressing how the troops are being deployed on the ground.

Missing Context & Misinformation 6

  • The protests began on June 6, 2025, when ICE conducted immigration raids across Los Angeles County locations to arrest undocumented immigrants, leading to immediate clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
  • At least 56 people were arrested during the initial protests and riots, with injuries reported among both police officers and protesters during the confrontations.
  • Trump deployed 300 National Guard soldiers under Title 10 authority, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicating that 700 Marines were being mobilized as backup forces to protect federal agents and buildings.
  • The federalization of National Guard units against a governor's wishes has historical precedent, with similar actions occurring as recently as 1965 during previous presidencies.
  • Under current law, the National Guard troops and Marines are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activities such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, limiting their role to protecting federal personnel and property.
  • The legal dispute centers on 10 USC 12406, which allows presidents to federalize state National Guard when regular forces are unable to execute federal laws, but requires orders to go 'through the governor.'

Disinformation & Lies 1

No disinformation or lies detected in this article.

Bias 3

The article contains some bias elements but they are largely fair and useful. The characterization of Trump 'seizing control' and 'taking control' of the National Guard carries negative connotations but accurately reflects the legal dispute's nature. The description of 'unrest over immigration enforcement' is appropriately neutral given the documented protests and riots. The article maintains journalistic objectivity by presenting both sides' legal arguments and noting the bipartisan composition of the appeals court panel. The bias present helps readers understand the constitutional tensions at stake without unfairly prejudicing either side.