In a defining legal development, President Donald Trump has clinched a significant victory in the ongoing legal tussle with California Governor Gavin Newsom. On October 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a rehearing of the case Newsom v. Trump en banc, effectively upholding a previous ruling that favored the President. This decision grants President Trump the continued authority to command California National Guard troops, which he federalized in response to the protests in Los Angeles earlier this year.
The case arose from a series of violent demonstrations that erupted in Los Angeles on June 6, 2025. These protests were sparked by federal immigration raids conducted by ICE, which resulted in the arrest of 44 individuals and the detention of approximately 80 more. The situation escalated as protesters clashed with officers near the Metropolitan Detention Center, leading to damage of federal property.
In the wake of the unrest, President Trump, citing 10 U.S.C. § 12406, federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard for a period of 60 days. His stated objective was to ensure the protection of federal personnel and property amidst the chaos. Governor Newsom, however, contended that the President had overstepped by not routing the federalization order through the governor's office, as he claimed was legally required.
The courts, however, sided with President Trump, dismissing Newsom's argument and reinforcing the federal government's authority in these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit's refusal to rehear the case solidifies this stance, indicating judicial support for the President's decisive actions in times of national emergency.
Legal analysts suggest that this ruling could set a precedent, potentially expanding the powers of future presidents in deploying state-controlled troops during instances of domestic unrest. This shift could alter the dynamic between the federal government and state governors, particularly in states that are resistant to federal intervention.
For President Trump, this legal victory is the latest in a series of confrontations with California's Democratic leadership. It sends a strong message to Governor Newsom and other state officials that the President's authority as commander-in-chief is paramount during crisis situations.
Observers believe that the outcome of this case will likely influence how federal-state disputes are resolved in future incidents of civil unrest. The ruling underscores President Trump's readiness to assert federal authority in order to safeguard personnel and property, and it may encourage him to take more assertive measures in states experiencing significant turmoil.
The President's legal team has hailed the decision as an affirmation of his constitutional powers. Meanwhile, the case also highlights the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and blue-state governors who oppose his policies.
In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit's decision not only emphasizes President Trump's strong stance during emergencies but also adds to his record of legal successes against left-leaning political figures. The ruling is seen as a reinforcement of presidential powers during domestic crises and a significant win for the Trump administration.
