The Radical Reading Room

A federal appeals court on October 23 kept in place an order preventing the Trump administration from federalizing the California National Guard for use in Los Angeles, preserving state control of the force while the underlying lawsuit continues. In a split opinion in Newsom v. Trump, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction entered by the district court and concluded the administration had not shown that its move fit within the authority Congress gave the president under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2) and (3).

The practical effect is straightforward: for now, the federal government cannot rely on that order to take command of the state Guard in this dispute. The appellate ruling does not end the case, and it does not resolve every issue the parties may continue to press. But it does leave the district court’s injunction intact unless a later panel, the full Ninth Circuit, or the Supreme Court changes the result.

The opinion is a statutory decision, not a criminal judgment and not a finding that Donald Trump committed personal wrongdoing. Its immediate significance is narrower and more legalistic than the political arguments surrounding it. The court addressed whether the administration had a valid statutory basis for the federalization order, and on the record before it, the panel said no.

California officials treated the ruling as a victory for the state’s position that the federal government had gone beyond its lawful authority. The administration had argued that unrest connected to immigration protests justified the order as a public-safety measure. The panel did not accept that justification as sufficient under the statute the government cited.

The case now moves forward with the injunction still in place. Further review is possible, but absent a new ruling, the Ninth Circuit’s decision keeps the California National Guard under state control in this dispute.