A federal judge in San Francisco delivered a scathing rebuke to President Donald Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard on Thursday, ruling that the president’s actions were illegal and ordering the immediate return of control to Governor Gavin Newsom. However, within hours, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the federal government’s emergency request to temporarily stay the order.
Both court rulings may ultimately prove inconsequential, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth evaded direct questions from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and other House Armed Services Committee hearing regarding whether he would honor federal district or appellate court decisions that could mandate ending the Pentagon’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles.
“What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” Hegseth declared, reinforcing the administration’s position that lower courts lack authority over national security matters.
Later, Hegseth clarified his position, stating, “We’re not here to defy a Supreme Court ruling.” This suggests that while the Pentagon may resist or delay compliance with lower court orders, it would ultimately abide by a definitive decision from the nation’s highest court.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a 36-page ruling that found President Trump exceeded his statutory authority when he federalized 4,000 California National Guard members in response to protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles.
“His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote in his decision. “He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
Judge Breyer concluded that Trump violated federal law in three key ways when he invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to take control of the state’s National Guard forces.
The court found that President Trump’s federalization order violated federal law in multiple ways:
- Failed to meet statutory conditions: The judge ruled that none of the three conditions required under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were satisfied: there was no foreign invasion, no rebellion, and the president was not unable to execute federal laws with regular forces.
- Procedural violations: “Defendants did not notify Governor Newsom of their intent to federalize the California National Guard prior to issuing the June 7 Memo or the June 7 DOD Order,” the court found.
- Constitutional concerns: The judge determined the action violated the Tenth Amendment, writing that “the unlawful federalization of those members has interfered with the state’s legitimate police power, and thus it violates the Tenth Amendment.”
Judge Breyer specifically addressed the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law, ruling that “the statute permits the President to federalize the National Guard ‘[w]henever’ one of the three enumerated conditions are met, not whenever he determines that one of them is met.”
The court concluded: “At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
California operates the largest National Guard in the country, with 18,733 members, 12,212 of whom are currently available. “The California National Guard is ‘vital’ in carrying out state functions such as ’emergency and natural disaster response, cybersecurity, and drug interdiction,'” the court noted.
The judge rejected the Trump administration’s central argument that protests against ICE raids constituted a “rebellion” warranting federal military intervention.
“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,'” Breyer wrote. “Defendants refer repeatedly to ‘violent rioters,’ and ‘mobs,’ see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully.”
Breyer emphasized that “the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”
Hours after Breyer’s ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a brief order granting the federal government’s emergency motion for a stay. The three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Bennett, Miller, and Sung wrote: “The request for an administrative stay is GRANTED. The district court’s June 12 temporary restraining order is temporarily stayed pending further order.”
The appeals court set an accelerated briefing schedule with oral arguments scheduled for June 17, 2025, at 12:00 PM PDT via Zoom.
