Just hours after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block President Donald Trump’s federalization of 4,000 California Army National Guard soldiers, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moved to suspend enforcement of that order, setting the stage for a high-stakes constitutional showdown.
The panel—comprising Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, along with Biden appointee Jennifer Sung—voted to block Breyer’s TRO pending a full hearing on the merits. This rapid intervention throws the legality of California’s attempt to regain control of its National Guard into temporary uncertainty.
The move comes amid intensifying riots and civil unrest in Los Angeles and other cities, where Trump had federalized the Guard to support ICE enforcement and quell escalating violence. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with state Democrats, challenged the legality of that move, arguing it violated both statutory law and the Constitution.
In his sharply worded decision, Judge Breyer ruled the Trump administration’s action violated federal law on three major fronts:
-
No Legal Justification:
Breyer said Trump’s invocation of the 1903 Militia Act was invalid. The statute permits federalization of state guards only under limited conditions: foreign invasion, rebellion, or presidential incapacity to enforce federal laws. Breyer ruled that the Los Angeles riots did not constitute a rebellion, rejecting Trump’s classification under the statute’s historical intent. -
Procedural Violations:
Under federal law, Guard activation must be issued “through the governors” of affected states. The Trump administration claimed compliance by typing “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA” on the orders—but never actually delivered them to Governor Newsom. The court called this a “semantic sleight-of-hand,” noting Newsom only learned about the orders from his own adjutant general after the fact. -
Tenth Amendment Infringement:
Breyer held that Trump’s unilateral seizure of the Guard violated California’s constitutional right to manage its own military forces for state needs—such as combating wildfires or addressing the fentanyl crisis—thereby breaching the Tenth Amendment’s federalism protections.
The Trump administration continues to argue that the deteriorating law-and-order conditions in Los Angeles and the threats to federal personnel and property constitute ample justification for federal intervention. Supporters of the federalization note the unprecedented scope of the unrest, the targeting of federal facilities, and the active coordination between violent actors and foreign sympathizers.
California officials, meanwhile, are portraying the move as executive overreach, framing it as a violation of states’ rights and military sovereignty.
