A divided federal appeals court ruled on Oct. 23 that President Donald Trump lacked legal authority to federalize 4,000 California National Guard troops in June 2025 and deploy them to Los Angeles to deal with civil unrest.

The 2–1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the federal government’s characterization of the sometimes violent protests during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the region as a rebellion that justified federal involvement to restore order.

Because Title 10 of the U.S. Code did not authorize “the President’s initial federalization order, the order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Therefore, the order was ultra vires and unconstitutional,” the panel said.

The panel also found that the plaintiffs—California and Gov. Gavin Newsom—were likely to succeed on their claim that the conditions in Los Angeles did not constitute “a rebellion or danger of rebellion” within the meaning of the federal statute.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett dissented.

He said the appeals court should have dismissed the case after the Supreme Court’s Dec. 23, 2025, ruling in Trump v. Illinois. In that case, a divided high court ruled that Trump could not deploy National Guard troops to Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

The Supreme Court acknowledged in that case that federal immigration enforcement efforts “have encountered significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago.” However, the court added, “At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”

In the current litigation, Bennett said the parties had not fully briefed the panel on how the Illinois decision applied and that the case was still at an early stage. In addition, he said the panel made a number of legal errors, including relying on the wrong legal standard when it held that Trump exceeded his authority.

On Dec. 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had blocked Trump’s use of the National Guard.

The judge rejected the administration’s argument that protests against federal immigration authorities constituted a rebellion that warranted the president’s federalization of California National Guard troops.

“Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly.”

The judge also rebuffed the argument that the courts had no authority to review a president’s takeover of state National Guard troops in an emergency situation.

Breyer had also previously blocked the deployment. On Sept. 2, 2025, he found that the federal government had violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

Trump ended the deployment in December 2025.

Although the federal Posse Comitatus Act restricts the ability of the federal government to use military resources for domestic law enforcement, a president may take over, or federalize, state National Guard troops on an emergency basis under certain circumstances. The president has federalized troops in various cities to deal with violence that he said was interfering with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law.

The Trump administration argued that attacks on federal agents and vehicles, and damage to property, were proof that the federal government was unable to fully enforce immigration and other federal laws in Los Angeles. The government argued that these conditions that it said were aimed at interfering with immigration enforcement were also a form of rebellion as defined by Title 10. The administration said the president’s factual finding was entitled to great deference, so the courts should not second-guess his assessment.

California argued the unrest failed to meet the statutory definition of rebellion, that the president went beyond his lawful authority, and that his determination was judicially reviewable.

State attorneys also said the presidential deployment failed to meet the legal standard the Supreme Court articulated in Trump v. Illinois.

Newsom hailed the new ruling, saying it upheld the rule of law and the Constitution.

“Yet another court has issued a complete rejection of Donald’s Trump illegal, authoritarian takeover of our state’s National Guard,” the Democratic governor said in a statement.

“California fought back against this potential power grab, and in doing so created essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans,” he said.

The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment. No reply was received by publication time.

The federal government could ask the full Ninth Circuit for a rehearing or appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.