Trump and Newsom Face Off in Court Over National Guard Federalization

California Governor Gavin Newsom is challenging President Donald Trump in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over the unprecedented federalization of the state’s National Guard. The legal dispute centers on Trump’s June 7 order that placed 4,000 California Guard troops under federal control to assist with immigration enforcement and manage protests in Los Angeles.

Newsom’s legal team argues the move is unlawful, lacks justification under federal law, and

threatens to upend constitutional limits on presidential power.

Newsom: Trump Overstepped Authority

The state contends Trump violated 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units only in the case of invasion, rebellion, or when the president is unable to enforce federal law with regular forces. California says none of those conditions apply.

While some protests in Los Angeles turned violent, the state argues local and state law enforcement, including the LAPD, were managing the situation effectively. The district court agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order returning control of the Guard to Newsom.

The state also points out that federal orders must also be reviewed and approved “through the governor,” which did not happen. Trump’s team labeled the orders as such, but Newsom says he was never informed or consulted.

Public Safety and State Resources at Risk

California also claims that the use of the National Guard has drained resources needed for wildfire response, drug interdiction, and emergency services. Nearly a third of the state’s Guard personnel are now under federal command. One of the most concerning points is that the state’s wildfire unit, Task Force Rattlesnake, has been reduced by more than half, just as the fire season begins.

A Constitutional Clash

The case raises major questions about the balance of power between state and federal government. California argues Trump’s actions infringe on state sovereignty and exceed the limits set by Congress. The state's lawyers warn that under Trump’s reading of the law, any president could seize control of state’s guard units during routine protests without oversight.

“Defendants’ interpretation of Section 12406 would empower the President to commandeer a State’s National  Guard based merely on evidence that some civilians opposed his authority,” California warns.

Trump’s legal team argues the president has full discretion under Section 12406 and called the court’s intervention a “gross violation of the separation of powers.”

What’s Next

The Ninth Circuit is weighing Trump’s request to pause the lower court’s ruling while the appeal proceeds. A full hearing on California’s motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for June 20. The outcome could set a key precedent on executive power and the use of military force in domestic affairs.