The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on two significant appeals involving the federalization of the California National Guard by President Donald Trump. The case, known as Newsom v. Trump (Docket No. 25-7781), centers around the actions taken by the President in response to disturbances in Los Angeles in June 2025. The court's decisions affect the state of California and its Governor, Gavin Newsom, as they seek to maintain control over the National Guard in the face of federal intervention.
This ruling is important because it addresses the balance of power between state and federal authorities, particularly regarding the deployment of state military forces. The outcomes of these appeals could set a precedent for future interactions between state governors and the federal government when it comes to military and law enforcement actions.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, and the State of California as plaintiffs, and Donald Trump, the President of the United States, along with the Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense as defendants. The dispute arose when President Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allowed him to order 4,000 members of the California National Guard into federal service for 60 days. This action was taken to protect federal personnel and property amid civil unrest in Los Angeles.
Following the President's order, Governor Newsom and the State of California filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The case made its way through the court system, leading to several appeals regarding the legality of the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. The district court initially granted a temporary restraining order against the deployment, which prompted the federal government to appeal.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit issued a combined opinion on the appeals. The court denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the appeal regarding the initial federalization of the California National Guard (Case No. 25-3727). The court explained that the appeal was not moot and that a decision on the merits would still provide relief to the state in future similar situations. The court stated, "A decision on the merits would provide relief to the State by preventing federalization of the California National Guard under similar circumstances in the future."
On the other hand, the court granted the federal government's motion to dismiss the appeal concerning the extension of the federalization (Case No. 25-7781). The court noted that this appeal had little practical significance since it followed the decision to affirm the initial federalization injunction. The judges involved in this ruling were Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller, and Jennifer Sung.
Impact
The court's decisions have significant implications for the future of state and federal relations, particularly regarding the use of the National Guard. By denying the motion to dismiss the appeal in Case No. 25-3727, the court emphasized the importance of judicial review in cases where federal actions may infringe on state authority. This ruling could deter future federal overreach and reinforce the autonomy of state governments in controlling their National Guard units.
Additionally, the dismissal of the appeal in Case No. 25-7781 suggests that the court is cautious about unnecessary litigation over matters that may not have immediate relevance. This approach could streamline future cases involving similar issues, allowing for faster resolutions when federal actions are challenged by state officials.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is unclear whether the federal government will seek to appeal the decision further. There may also be related cases pending that could arise from this situation, particularly if similar circumstances occur in other states. The outcomes of these appeals will likely continue to shape the legal landscape surrounding the deployment of National Guard forces and the balance of power between state and federal governments.