LA Security Risks & National Impact | The Cipher Brief
- SAN FRANCISCO—A federal appeals court is considering the legality of President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the California National Guard in response to protests over...
- The legal battle began after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted raids in Los Angeles in early June 2025, targeting multiple locations and detaining dozens of...
- Federal District Judge Charles R.Breyer initially sided with California, arguing that Trump's actions were illegal as he did not follow the proper procedure for federalizing the National Guard.
A federal appeals court is now deciding the legality of deploying the California National Guard amidst Los Angeles immigration protests, a decision with massive national impact. The core issue is whether the former president overstepped his authority by federalizing the Guard,following lower court rulings against the move. This legal battle, stemming from ICE raids and resulting protests, could set a precedent for federal control over state National Guard units nationwide. The court’s ruling will be pivotal in defining the balance of power. News Directory 3 is tracking this case closely. The implications for immigration policy are substantial, possibly affecting states’ rights. Discover what’s next …
Court weighs Trump’s National Guard Role in california Immigration Protests
Updated June 17, 2025
SAN FRANCISCO—A federal appeals court is considering the legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the
California National Guard in response to protests over immigration arrests in Los Angeles. the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals heard arguments today after a lower court judge ruled Trump overstepped his authority.
The legal battle began after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted raids in Los Angeles in early June
2025, targeting multiple locations and detaining dozens of individuals. Protests erupted in response, with
demonstrators gathering in the Garment District and at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Federal District Judge Charles R.Breyer initially sided with California, arguing that Trump’s actions were illegal
as he did not follow the proper procedure for federalizing the National Guard. Breyer stated that the president
exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth amendment. He ordered the immediate return of the California
National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s control.
Trump invoked Title 10, section 12406, of the U.S. Code,which allows the president to call the National Guard into
federal service under specific circumstances,including invasion,rebellion,or inability to execute federal laws.
Trump asserted that the protests, triggered by immigration enforcement, constituted a form of rebellion.
However, Breyer emphasized that Trump did not consult with Newsom before issuing the order to federalize the National
Guard. Newsom reportedly learned of the decision from the Adjutant General after the order was issued.
The state of California, along with 21 other states and the governor’s office of Kansas, argue that Trump’s actions
set a risky precedent. They contend that the president’s memo lacked specific geographic limitations, leaving
open the possibility of federalizing National Guard units in other states as well.
“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. He must thus return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of
the State of California forthwith,” Judge Breyer wrote in his June 12 decision.
What’s next
The 9th Circuit’s decision will determine whether Trump can continue using the California National Guard to support
federal immigration enforcement efforts. The ruling could have significant implications for the balance of power
between the federal government and state governments, particularly regarding immigration policy and the role of the
National Guard.