President Trump was handcuffed by a rogue activist judge. But that wasn’t the last of it.
As an Appeals Court released a ruling late in the night that has huge consequences.
Trump’s National Guard Move Upheld By Appellate Court
President Donald Trump’s action to federalize 4,000 California National Guard troops to quell unrest in Los Angeles has been temporarily upheld by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, delivering a significant victory for the administration’s commitment to public safety. Late Thursday, the appeals court blocked a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had deemed Trump’s move “illegal” and ordered the troops returned to Governor Gavin Newsom’s control. The 9th Circuit’s intervention ensures the Guard remains under federal authority, at least until a hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
The controversy erupted when Trump, responding to protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement, federalized the California Guard and deployed 700 U.S. Marines to restore order. The administration’s swift response aimed to protect citizens and property in a city teetering on the edge of chaos. Newsom and California’s attorney general, however, challenged the move, filing a lawsuit to reclaim control of the Guard, marking a historic clash over state and federal power.
Judge Breyer’s ruling, issued after a contentious hearing in San Francisco, accused Trump of overstepping his authority. “We live in response to a monarchy,” Breyer remarked, comparing Trump’s actions to those of King George III. His order claimed Trump’s federalization violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded statutory limits, asserting, “At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not.”
Breyer’s decision hinged on his interpretation of federal law, arguing that none of the conditions for federalizing the Guard—such as invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce U.S. laws—were met. “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” he wrote, adding that Trump’s actions “alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments.” He scheduled a follow-up hearing for June 20 to consider a preliminary injunction, though the appeals court’s stay may alter those plans.
The Trump administration wasted no time appealing Breyer’s order, seeking relief from the 9th Circuit. The appeals court’s decision to grant a temporary stay demonstrated the urgency of maintaining federal control to ensure stability in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel will now review the case, weighing whether to extend the stay or allow Breyer’s ruling to take effect. For now, the Guard remains a federal asset, ready to protect American streets.
Trump celebrated the appeals court’s decision on social media Friday morning, emphasizing his commitment to public safety. “The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” he wrote. “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!” His words highlight the administration’s resolve to prevent urban unrest from spiraling out of control.
Trump celebrates the 9th Circuit Court of appeals pausing a federal judge’s order to return control of the National Guard to Newsom. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/18IeX2DkRV
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) June 13, 2025
Newsom, in contrast, framed the dispute as a battle against overreach. Before the appeals court’s stay, he praised Breyer’s ruling, posting on X, “The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.” His office even shared a provocative video of the “Death Star” exploding, a not-so-subtle jab at the administration. Newsom’s rhetoric casts him as a defender of state sovereignty, but critics argue his resistance prioritizes politics over public safety.
The legal showdown stems from Trump’s unprecedented use of a federal statute to federalize the Guard without Newsom’s consent, a move Breyer called a “dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity.” Yet supporters of the administration argue that extraordinary times call for decisive measures. With protests threatening to destabilize Los Angeles, Trump’s intervention aimed to restore calm and protect communities from violence and destruction.
The administration’s legal team faced tough questioning from Breyer, who pressed them to justify Trump’s authority. Despite the judge’s skepticism, the 9th Circuit’s stay suggests the appeals court sees merit in the administration’s case. The upcoming hearing will be critical, as the panel evaluates the balance between federal power and state rights in a time of crisis.
Newsom’s lawsuit paints Trump’s actions as authoritarian, with the governor declaring, “This win is not just for California, but the nation.” He added, “It’s a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day. End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now, @realDonaldTrump.” His fiery rhetoric resonates with critics of the administration, but it overlooks the immediate need to address unrest in California’s largest city.
The 9th Circuit’s decision to pause Breyer’s ruling keeps the Guard under federal control, allowing Trump to maintain order in Los Angeles. The administration argues that local authorities, under Newsom’s leadership, failed to manage the protests effectively, necessitating federal intervention. The deployment of Marines alongside the Guard reinforces Trump’s commitment to protecting American cities from lawlessness.
As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes extend beyond California. The case tests the limits of presidential power in times of domestic unrest, with implications for how future administrations address similar crises. Trump’s supporters see his actions as a necessary response to protect citizens, while opponents warn of federal overreach. The 9th Circuit’s final ruling will shape this debate.
Newsom’s defiant stance, coupled with his “History is watching” remark, frames the dispute as a moral crusade. Yet the administration’s backers argue that history will judge leaders by their ability to maintain order and protect lives. The coming days will bring clarity as the appeals court hears arguments and decides the Guard’s fate.
