Ninth Circuit Rules Trump's National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles Likely Illegal

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard in Los Angeles during June 2025 was likely illegal. The ruling, handed down on October 23, underscores significant limitations on presidential authority to deploy military forces within the country under emergency conditions. Despite the fact that the controversial deployment ended months ago and was previously halted by a Supreme Court decision related to an Illinois case, this latest judicial review highlights broader implications for executive actions invoking national emergencies.

The legal challenge against Trump’s federalization of the National Guard originated from California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit filed in June 2025. The original district court had already ruled that Trump's action was illegal and issued an injunction to block it, but the Ninth Circuit lifted this preliminary injunction earlier in the year. Now, with its latest ruling, the appellate court has reinstated the district court’s decision, emphasizing the need for stricter judicial oversight of executive branch decisions involving military deployment.

The relevant statute, 10 U.S.C. Section 12406, permits federalization of state National Guard forces under specific circumstances: invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion against the government, or when regular forces are insufficient to enforce laws. In this case, Trump invoked Section 12406(3), arguing that he was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States due to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and Chicago. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in a related Illinois case last December clarified that Subsection 3 can only be applied when federal military forces are authorized and inadequate for enforcing laws—a condition not met during the protests.

Given this context, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether Trump’s actions could have been justified under Section 12406(2), which pertains to rebellion. The court's majority opinion by Judge Jennifer Sung asserts that judicial review of claims of rebellion is necessary and can invalidate such claims if they do not reflect a credible assessment within an honest range of judgment. This standard, while more restrictive than what some legal experts had hoped for, still allows for invalidation when the claim of rebellion is clearly unfounded.

The court’s decision also hinges on its definition of "rebellion" as requiring “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government.” In this instance, the protests in Los Angeles did not meet these stringent criteria. The ruling thus sets a precedent that executive decisions invoking emergency powers must be subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny.

Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates are viewing this decision as a crucial safeguard against overreach by the executive branch during times of perceived national crisis. They argue that it reinforces the principle that the president’s authority is not absolute, especially when deploying military forces domestically—a power traditionally reserved for Congress under the Constitution's War Powers Act.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the specific case at hand, influencing future legal challenges to similar actions by any sitting president. It underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between executive authority and judicial oversight in matters concerning national security and public order.