Appeals⁤ Court Ruling on Military Role Backs ‍Trump Administration in California

Updated June⁣ 20, ⁢2025

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court ‍of Appeals has sided with the Trump administration, ruling that federal troops ⁣can ⁤remain in Los Angeles while California’s‍ legal challenge proceeds. The court‍ acknowledged the president’s broad⁣ authority to deploy the ⁢military within U.S. cities, though Judge mark ⁣J. Bennett of Honolulu⁢ emphasized that this power is not “unreviewable.” The legal ⁣battle highlights ongoing tensions over the appropriate military role and federal power.

despite the ruling, California officials are resolute to continue their fight in federal court. attorney General Rob bonta stated, “This case is far from‍ over…we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”‍ Gov. Gavin Newsom echoed this sentiment, vowing to⁢ challenge ⁣what he described as President Trump’s “authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

Legal scholars anticipated the decision, noting the 9th⁢ Circuit’s ⁤shift⁢ toward a more balanced composition. Eric Merriam, a ‍professor of legal⁣ studies at Central Florida University, emphasized‍ the notable power Congress has ‍granted the president through relevant statutes.‍ He added⁤ that courts have historically shown “extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military.”

during Tuesday’s hearing, the appellate panel questioned both sides, casting doubt on the federal government’s⁤ claim that presidential actions are beyond judicial‍ review⁢ and California’s argument that Trump exceeded ⁢his authority by deploying troops to ⁢quell‍ a “rebellion⁤ against the authority of the United States.”

⁤ ⁢ “All three judges seemed skeptical of the arguments that each party was making in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior⁣ director of the Liberty and National Security Programme at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.
⁣

The ‍ruling effectively ‍returns the matter to U.S. District Judge‍ Charles R. Breyer. Unlike Breyer’s previous ⁤temporary restraining order, the appellate court largely avoided addressing whether the situation in Los Angeles constituted a⁢ “rebellion,” focusing instead on the limits of presidential power and⁢ the military role.

Judge Bennett directly challenged ⁣Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate’s argument that the⁢ decision to federalize⁣ National Guard ‍troops was “unreviewable.” Bennett ⁤cited Supreme Court precedent, stating that courts⁢ retain the⁢ ability to review decisions that ⁢are “obviously absurd ⁣or made in⁣ bad faith.”

What’s next

The legal challenge will continue in U.S. District Court, where California will ⁢press its ‍case against the federal government’s deployment of troops in Los Angeles. The focus will likely remain on the scope of presidential power and the ‍specific circumstances⁢ justifying the military’s⁢ presence.