Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Trump’s Authority Over California National Guard—What It Means for the Future

A recent decision by a California appeals court has allowed President Trump to keep control over the California National Guard in Los Angeles. This move comes amid protests related to immigration enforcement. Governor Gavin Newsom had challenged Trump’s authority, but the court’s ruling was temporary and blocked a previous decision that favored Newsom.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s actions were illegal. He stated that Trump had overstepped his authority and violated the Tenth Amendment, which outlines the division of powers between state and federal governments. Breyer pointed out that while protests did turn violent at times, they did not qualify as a rebellion.

In June, after a day of escalating protests, Trump federalized around 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines, despite Newsom’s objections. This decision was notable because it marked the first time in 60 years that a president activated a state’s National Guard against a governor’s wishes. The last instance was during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, when troops were sent to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.

At a recent hearing, California’s legal team argued that Trump’s federalization was unlawful since he did not consult Newsom beforehand, which is typically expected. They expressed concerns that the military’s presence would only heighten tensions between protesters and law enforcement. In contrast, attorneys for the federal government insisted that Trump acted within his constitutional rights and claimed there had been instances where protests escalated into riots, necessitating the Guard’s intervention.

Interestingly, this legal battle highlights a broader trend in current U.S. politics—how federal government authority interacts with state governance, particularly in times of civil unrest. According to a 2021 survey by the Pew Research Center, around 60% of Americans believe that state governments should have more control over their national guard units, reflecting a growing concern about the federal government’s reach during domestic crises.

As this case unfolds, it remains an important topic for both legal experts and citizens watching how such decisions impact communities on the ground. The balance between maintaining public order and respecting state authority is critical, especially in a politically charged environment.

For more detailed insights into this legal backdrop and the implications of these decisions, you can check out resources like the American Bar Association.

Source link