The Trump California National Guard takeover was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court, in a decision that strikes at the heart of one of the most controversial uses of presidential power in recent years.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump’s June 2025 federalization of about 4,000 California National Guard members was unlawful under 10 U.S.C. ยง 12406, the statute that allows the president to call the Guard into federal service in limited circumstances, such as a rebellion or an invasion. The court found that, on the record before it, there was no rebellion, and the deployment to Los Angeles exceeded presidential authority.
The majority opinion was written by Judge Sung, with a concurrence from Judge Miller. Judge Bennett dissented. The ruling is a significant reversal: the same court had temporarily allowed the federalization to proceed in June 2025, while the case was still being litigated. The October 2026 decision, however, applied a different legal test, shaped in part by an intervening Supreme Court order in an Illinois case, and reached the opposite conclusion on the merits.
Key takeaways
- The 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that federalizing about 4,000 California National Guard members in June 2025 was illegal.
- The majority, led by Judge Sung, said the deployment exceeded authority under 10 U.S.C. ยง 12406, with no rebellion on the record.
- Judge Bennett dissented; Judge Miller concurred.
- The same panel had temporarily allowed the deployment in June 2025, before the Supreme Court’s Illinois order changed the test.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom called it “a crucial day for the rule of law.”
- The White House did not immediately respond to the ruling.
- The Guard is no longer federalized today, due to a separate injunction track running to December 31, 2025.
- Related appeals, including on the Posse Comitatus Act, remain pending and are not decided by this ruling.
What the court actually decided
It is important to be precise about what this ruling does and does not do. The court did not rule on every aspect of the Los Angeles deployment. It ruled that the federalization itself โ the act of taking California Guard members under federal command โ was unlawful under the specific statute invoked.
The majority reasoned that the statute’s conditions were not met. A rebellion, in the legal sense, requires more than protests, unrest or even violent incidents in a city. The record, the majority said, did not show a rebellion that would justify federalizing the Guard over the objections of the state governor.
The dissent disagreed, arguing that the president should be given broader deference in judging whether the statutory conditions were met, and that the courts should not second-guess that judgment so closely. That disagreement โ over how much deference the president gets โ is at the centre of the case, and it is likely to be central if the case goes further.
The ruling also sits alongside, but does not decide, the separate Posse Comitatus Act questions. That Act generally bars the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement, with exceptions. Appeals on whether Guard members were used in ways that violated that Act are still pending, and this decision should not be read as resolving them.
Newsom, the White House and the politics
Governor Gavin Newsom, who had challenged the federalization, called the decision “a crucial day for the rule of law.” For Newsom, who has positioned himself as a leading opponent of the Trump administration’s use of federal power in California, the ruling is both a legal victory and a political one. It validates the argument California made from the start: that the president cannot federalize a state’s Guard simply because he disagrees with how a governor is handling unrest.
The White House did not immediately respond to the ruling. That silence leaves open the next step: whether the administration will seek review by the full 9th Circuit, or by the Supreme Court. Either path would take time, and neither is guaranteed to succeed, especially given the intervening Supreme Court order that already reshaped the legal test in this case.
Politically, the ruling lands at a sensitive moment. The Guard deployment to Los Angeles in June 2025 was one of the most visible domestic military deployments in recent American history, and it became a symbol in a broader debate about federalism โ about where state power ends and federal power begins. A court ruling that the deployment was illegal does not end that debate, but it does set a legal marker that future presidents will have to reckon with.
Why the June 2025 temporary order matters
One of the most confusing parts of this story is that the same court once allowed the deployment to continue. In June 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a temporary order that let the federalization proceed while the case was litigated. Many readers took that as a sign the administration would ultimately win.
That is not how temporary orders work. A temporary order asks a different question: should the status quo be preserved while the case is decided, or should it be changed immediately? The court in June 2025 answered that narrow question in the administration’s favour. The October 2026 ruling answers the merits question โ was the federalization lawful in the first place? โ and answers it against the administration.
The change was driven in part by the Supreme Court’s intervening order in an Illinois case, which clarified how courts should assess presidential claims of authority in this area. The 9th Circuit applied that clarified test and found the California deployment did not pass it.
What happens next
- Watch for an appeal. The administration may seek en banc review by the full 9th Circuit, or petition the Supreme Court. Either would keep the legal fight alive, even though the Guard is no longer federalized today.
- The Posse Comitatus appeals are still pending. Those cases ask a different question โ not whether the Guard could be federalized, but whether federalized troops were then used unlawfully for law enforcement. Their outcome could matter as much as this ruling.
- The separate injunction track, running to December 31, 2025, is why the Guard is not federalized today. That track and this merits ruling are related but distinct, and both shape what happens on the ground.
- Other states will be watching. Governors and presidents alike will read this ruling as a guide to what a court will โ and will not โ allow in future deployments.
- The federalism debate continues. This ruling is a legal decision, not a political settlement. The underlying argument about presidential power, state sovereignty and domestic military deployment will outlive this case.
For now, the legal position is clear: the Trump California National Guard takeover, as federalized in June 2025, was ruled illegal by the 9th Circuit. What the administration does next, and what the Supreme Court does if asked, will determine whether that ruling stands as the final word.
FAQs
What did the 9th Circuit rule? It ruled 2-1 that President Trump’s June 2025 federalization of about 4,000 California National Guard members was illegal under 10 U.S.C. ยง 12406, because the statutory conditions, including a rebellion, were not met on the record.
Who wrote the majority opinion? Judge Sung wrote the majority, Judge Miller concurred, and Judge Bennett dissented.
Why is this different from the June 2025 order? The June 2025 order was temporary, preserving the status quo while the case was litigated. The October 2026 ruling decides the merits, after an intervening Supreme Court order in an Illinois case changed the legal test.
What did Gavin Newsom say? Newsom called it “a crucial day for the rule of law.”
Did the White House respond? The White House did not immediately respond to the ruling.
Is the Guard still federalized today? No. The Guard is no longer federalized today, due to a separate injunction track running to December 31, 2025.
Does this decide the Posse Comitatus Act cases? No. Related appeals on the Posse Comitatus Act remain pending and are not decided by this ruling.
What happens next? The administration may seek full-court or Supreme Court review, and the pending Posse Comitatus appeals will continue separately.
Sources: Newsmax https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-gavin-newsom-national-guard/2026/10/23/id/1273829 (October 23, 2026, reporting the 9th Circuit ruling); 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, October 2026 ruling, as reported. Editor note: This article reports the court’s ruling as reported; the full opinion and any further appeal should be checked for updates, and the Posse Comitatus appeals remain pending.