...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declined to rehear Newsom v. Trump en banc—meaning by the full court—effectively upholding a prior ruling that permits President Donald Trump to maintain federal authority over California National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles during protests earlier this year.
In its October 22, 2025, order, the court said a majority of eligible judges did not support rehearing the case.
Why It Matters
The Newsom v. Trump case carries implications far beyond California’s borders, testing the limits of presidential authority to deploy military forces within the United States.
Read More on U.S.
By allowing President Donald Trump’s federalization of California’s National Guard to stand, the Ninth Circuit set a precedent that could expand executive power over state-controlled troops during domestic unrest.
The ruling raises fundamental questions about the balance between federal and state authority, the separation of civilian and military roles in law enforcement, and how future presidents might invoke emergency powers to respond to protests or crises without a governor’s consent.
...
What To Know
From Protests To A Federal Deployment
The case stems from protests that followed federal immigration raids in Los Angeles on June 6, 2025. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported 44 arrests and about 70 to 80 detentions.
According to court filings, demonstrations near the Metropolitan Detention Center turned confrontational, with objects thrown at officers and minor damage to federal property.
Citing the unrest, President Trump on June 7 invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize 4,000 members of the California National Guard for 60 days “to protect federal personnel performing federal functions, and to protect federal property.”
Governor Gavin Newsom objected, arguing that the situation was under control and that the president had bypassed him in violation of the statute’s requirement that such orders “be issued through the governors of the States.”
The Legal Clash In Federal Court
Newsom and the State of California filed suit on June 9 in the Northern District of California, contending that the deployment exceeded presidential authority and infringed the state’s sovereignty.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted a temporary restraining order, holding that Trump “did not follow the congressionally mandated procedure” and that his actions “violated the Tenth Amendment.”
The administration immediately appealed.
On June 19, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel—Judges Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller, and Jennifer Sung—granted Trump’s request for a stay of the district-court order.
The panel wrote that while the president’s decision was reviewable, the court’s review must be “highly deferential,” and concluded it was “likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under § 12406(3)” because federal officers had faced violence that local police could not promptly contain.
The panel also found that sending the order to California’s Adjutant General “likely satisfied” the requirement that it be issued through the governor.
Even if that procedure was technically flawed, the court said, it “would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court’s TRO.”
Politico reported that the decision effectively “blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops” and noted that “two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee ruled in Trump’s favor” while rejecting the administration’s claim that courts had no role at all in reviewing the deployment.
Appeals, Rehearing, And Where To From Here
On October 22, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, meaning reconsideration by the full court.
Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, joined by ten colleagues including Chief Judge Mary Murguia, issued a statement criticizing the panel’s earlier decision to defer to the president’s judgment in deploying troops.
“This case presents an issue of the gravest consequence: the peacetime deployment of military troops in American cities,” Berzon wrote.
She warned that the ruling “invited presidents, now and in the future, to deploy military troops in response to the kinds of commonplace, short-lived, domestic disturbances whose containment conventionally falls to local and federal law enforcement units.”
Judge Ronald M. Gould dissented from the denial, arguing the full court should have reconsidered the case immediately because of “the potential for executive overreach” and the likelihood that similar disputes could recur.
“Rehearing en banc is DENIED,” Clerk of Court Molly C. Dwyer wrote in the notice filed under docket No. 25-3727.
In her statement accompanying the denial of rehearing, Judge Berzon urged the court to revisit the matter if the panel’s decision is appealed further, warning that unchecked executive authority in domestic military deployments could “displace the rule of law, principles of federalism, and the federal separation of powers.”
For now, the appellate ruling remains the controlling precedent within the Ninth Circuit, leaving the California National Guard under federal authority for the duration of the deployment order and marking a significant legal victory for Trump in his continuing clashes with Democratic-led states over the scope of presidential power.
Newsom’s office did not immediately indicate whether it would seek Supreme Court review.
Court Timeline For Newsom V. Trump:
- June 9, 2025 — Complaint filed (N.D. Cal.)
California and Gov. Gavin Newsom sue President Trump, the Defense Secretary, and DOD, challenging the federalization and deployment of the California National Guard.
- June 10, 2025 — TRO motion filed (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs move ex parte for a temporary restraining order to halt the Guard deployment; proposed Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and supporting declarations submitted.
- June 10, 2025 — Defendants’ notice opposing ex parte TRO (N.D. Cal.)
DOJ files notice opposing entry of an ex parte TRO and requests time to respond.
- [June 10–12, 2025] — District court grants TRO (N.D. Cal.)
Judge Charles R. Breyer issues an order granting Plaintiffs’ TRO, holding the President did not follow the congressionally mandated procedure and must return control of the Guard to the Governor (order captioned “ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”).
- June 12, 2025 — Appellees oppose administrative stay (9th Cir.)
California files its opposition to Defendants’ request for an administrative stay and proposes an expedited schedule.
- June 19, 2025 — Panel grants stay pending appeal (9th Cir.)
In a published order, a three-judge panel stays the district court’s TRO. The panel holds the President’s action is reviewable but, under highly deferential review, it is likely he lawfully exercised authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3); the Secretary’s transmittal “through” the Adjutant General likely satisfied the statute’s routing requirement. The order also notes the panel had issued an administrative stay earlier.
- October 22, 2025 — En banc rehearing denied (9th Cir.)
The court denies rehearing en banc. Judge Berzon (joined by multiple judges) files a statement regarding the denial; Judge Gould dissents from the denial. The panel ruling therefore remains in effect while the appeal proceeds.
- Post-October 22, 2025 — Next procedural steps
Following the en banc denial, the case proceeds toward a panel merits decision and/or a potential certiorari petition—a formal request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision (90-day window from Oct. 22, 2025). (Procedural posture described in the en banc denial materials.)
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump June 10, 2025, said: “When there’s no danger, they’ll leave… You would have had a horrible situation had I not sent them in.”
Gavin Newsom October 5, 2025, said: “The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the president of the United States.”
What Happens Next
With the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing, Governor Gavin Newsom’s only remaining option is to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, likely by January 2026.
The appellate panel must still issue a final ruling on the merits, even though Trump’s 60-day deployment of California National Guard troops has already expired.
Similar lawsuits in Oregon and Illinois are moving forward, increasing the chance of a circuit split that could draw Supreme Court intervention.
The outcome will determine whether presidents can unilaterally federalize state Guard units during domestic unrest—an issue with sweeping implications for executive power, state sovereignty, and the traditional separation between civilian law enforcement and the military.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines