Trump Troops LA: 9th Circuit Case
- SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court grappled Tuesday with the legality of President Trump's decision to deploy the National guard to Los Angeles, setting the stage for...
- The three-judge panel, comprised of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, questioned the administration's claim of near-unlimited presidential discretion in deploying the military domestically.
- Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate asserted the president alone decides if requirements for nationalizing the California National Guard are met.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is scrutinizing the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, a move by the Trump administration that’s sparking a major legal battle regarding presidential power and the role of military deployments within the country. Judges are actively questioning the extent of governmental authority and considering the implications for state governments. California officials challenge the legality of the military’s presence, emphasizing concerns about local safety and the potential for overreach. The Supreme Court may get the chance to weigh in on this situation, with the outcome possibly redefining the balance of power. For more on this critical case and the broader implications for domestic military actions, see our coverage on News Directory 3. Discover what’s next …
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on National Guard Deployment, Presidential Power
Updated June 18, 2025
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court grappled Tuesday with the legality of President Trump’s decision to deploy the National guard to Los Angeles, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown over presidential power. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments challenging both the deployment and the court’s authority to review it.
The three-judge panel, comprised of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, questioned the administration’s claim of near-unlimited presidential discretion in deploying the military domestically. At the heart of the case is the extent of presidential authority, a topic the Supreme Court has addressed in recent years.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate asserted the president alone decides if requirements for nationalizing the California National Guard are met. California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt countered that the administration’s interpretation was dangerously broad, perhaps harming democratic norms.
The Trump administration justified the troop deployment by citing the need to support immigration enforcement and address demonstrations against that activity,which they characterized as “rebellion.” California officials, including Attorney general Rob Bonta, decried the move as a “military occupation” and an overreach of executive power.
Marines at a “No Kings” protest in Los angeles.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
Los Angeles officials voiced concerns that the military presence complicates local safety efforts.A brief filed by the City Attorney’s office stated the deployment erodes trust and escalates conflicts with law enforcement.
While the court appeared less focused on the situation in Los Angeles, judges seemed concerned about the potential impact on other critical duties, such as fighting wildfires. The court’s decision is expected soon.
“The crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to except Trump’s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC berkeley School of Law.
what’s next
The 9th Circuit is expected to rule soon on the stay. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, potentially reshaping the balance of power between the executive branch and state governments regarding domestic military deployments.