What's Happening?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declined to rehear the case of Newsom v. Trump en banc, effectively upholding a prior ruling that allows President Trump to maintain federal authority
over California National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles during protests. The decision stems from protests following federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, where President Trump federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard to protect federal personnel and property. Governor Gavin Newsom challenged this action, arguing it violated state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. However, a three-judge panel previously granted a stay of a district court's restraining order against the deployment, citing the president's statutory authority.
Why It's Important?
This ruling has significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities, particularly concerning the president's ability to deploy military forces domestically. By allowing the federalization of state-controlled troops, the Ninth Circuit's decision could set a precedent for expanded executive power during domestic unrest. This raises concerns about the separation of civilian and military roles in law enforcement and the potential for executive overreach. The decision also highlights ongoing tensions between President Trump and Democratic-led states over the scope of presidential authority.
What's Next?
With the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing, Governor Newsom's remaining option is to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The appellate panel must still issue a final ruling on the merits, even though the deployment order has expired. Similar lawsuits in other states could lead to a circuit split, increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court intervention. The outcome will determine the extent of presidential power to federalize state National Guard units during domestic disturbances.
