LA protests: US court allows Trump to keep control of California national guard while lawsuit proceeds

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian/Reuters

Fri 20 Jun 2025 00.16 EDT


A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control over California’s national guard while the state’s Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president’s use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals on Thursday extended a pause it had placed on US district Judge Charles Breyer’s 12 June ruling that Trump had called the national guard into federal service unlawfully. Breyer’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump’s action brought by governor Gavin Newsom.

Breyer ruled that Trump had violated the US law governing a president’s ability to take control of a state’s National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California’s national guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th circuit panel put the judge’s move on hold temporarily.

Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California’s national guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 US marines to the city after sending in the national guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.

At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer’s decision, members of the 9th circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump’s authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state national guard forces, including an invasion, a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country’s laws.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/20/la-protests-appeals-court-trump-california-national-guard

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf.32.0.pdf

[JT45242]

1. Two felon appointed judges side with him...what a shocker

Mango Mussolini pushed thru a lot of loyalists last time to the courts, especially appeals courts.

Not sure enough of the judicial branch will hold constitution over loyalty to prevent the fascists from quietly ending democracy

[BumRushDaShow]

2. If he did en banc

he'd probably prevail as the 9th is 16 (D-appointed) - 13 (R-appointed)

[FBaggins]

7. I wouldn't be so sure

There was a Biden appointee on the panel, yet the decision was unanimous.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. That was with a 3 judge panel

[FBaggins]

9. Yes - but it was unanimous

Meaning the Biden appointee agreed with the decision. It would thus be optomistic to assume that other Democrats on the en-banc court would all dissent.

Also keep in mind that the 9th handles en-banc differently than other circuits due to its size. We don't really know which judges would be involved... and that there's little question how SCOTUS would rule (so such an appeal seems a waste of time).

[BumRushDaShow]

10. And?

We just saw Kagan veer away from the liberals in a SCOTUS ruling today, so it happens.

I think there are several issues with respect to CA and per the ruling, they didn't deal with all of them. You have a complaint that 45 didn't bother to "coordinate" with the Governor, then you have a different issue of 45 bringing in actual "military" (also not addressed).

The lower court argued that what was going on was not an insurrection justifying such an outsized response, but based on some of the arguments about people throwing chunks of concrete, etc., at federal officers, that was apparently taken into account.

In any case, the underlying suit continues but based on how 45 has been wantonly violating laws and misusing the military, it still begs to stop him in his tracks ASAP to at least send a signal.

[littlemissmartypants]

3. The ruling lists...

Judge Jennifer Sung (Biden) Eric D. Miller and Mark J. Bennett are maga, Judge Charles R. Breyer the District Judge was appointed by Clinton.

Please unconfuse me.

PDF of the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf.32.0.pdf

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Welcome to DU

I hope. But it seems like the post puts a left-wing and a right-wing talking point into one post. I don't quite understand it.

[EndlessWire]

6. What is the definition of a riot?

The People have a right to peacefully assemble. Sure, there were cars burning, some property damage, I guess (who did that?), but by no means did we need Federalized troops and active-duty Marines out there pushing the protesters back. Protesters, not rioters. Trump's pronouncements that the whole city would have burned down is utter nonsense. The media showed the same three cars over and over again, while the cops stood down and watched.

If this snowballs, rump will then have the blueprint for quelling dissent with brute force. We are going to turn into Tiananmen Square. From brave Chinese to Ukrainian farmers, we have examples to follow. The nonviolent protests from the 60s worked well on No Kings Day. The 17th is coming up in July. Do it again, only bigger. It has to increase, not decrease.

[The Grand Illuminist]

12. Remember, that was the 60s.

Times change.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

11. And SCOTUS will agree.