Just a couple hours after a federal judge had ordered President Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard saying he had violated the U.S. Constitution, an appeals court put the order on hold until a hearing on an appeal can be held Tuesday.
The appeals court did not address the merits of the case or the judge's ruling earlier in the day. But it was a stunning turnaround in northern California courts that will play out on Los Angeles streets.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom had said he planned to return the 4,000 Guard Friday to their regular duties protecting the border, working on wildfire prevention or returning to their day jobs. Instead, it looked as if they will continue under the command of Trump, facing off with protesters in downtown Los Angeles.
Starting on Saturday, Trump federalized and deployed the state's Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, over the objections of Newsom. National Guard units across the country are under the command of governors but can be federalized by presidents.
In his order deploying the guard, Trump said there had been attempts to impede immigration agents in Los Angeles that constituted "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." His lawyers cited images of burning cars and crowds blocking the movement of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents.
It was the first time in 60 years that a president had activated a state's National Guard over the objections of the state's governor. In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.
After a hearing Thursday, a federal judge rejected Trump's rationale for taking control of the troops and ordered them returned to Newsom's control by mid-day Friday.
Issuing a 36-page ruling after a hearing Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump's Guard activation violated the U.S. Constitution's division of powers between the federal government and states, which have broad, local policing powers. "His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote.
It appeared the ruling was a setback for the White House in the dispute over the powers it can assert in cracking down on illegal immigration - and over public opposition to it.
Breyer rejected the president's claim that interference with ICE agents amounted to a rebellion against the government. "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion," Breyer wrote, adding that even when protests involved violence, there was not "evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole."
In a hearing before his ruling Thursday, Breyer rejected an argument by the administration's lawyer that the courts do not have authority to review a president's decision on whether the National Guard is needed. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It's not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it," the judge said.
Breyer's ruling issued a temporary injunction against Trump's takeover of the Guard. He also set a hearing on June 20 where the administration can try to argue why the court should not issue another injunction pending a full hearing of the case later.
Democratic Gov. Newsom had praised the ruling in a press conference in San Francisco and announced his plans to send the Guard back to the jobs they were doing before Trump federalized them.
"I hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach, we push back against these authoritarian tendencies of a president that has pushed the boundaries, pushed the limit, but no longer can push this state around," Newsom said.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that an appeal was coming and that Breyer "has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief," according to the Associated Press. "The President exercised his lawful authority to mobilize the National Guard to protect federal buildings and personnel in Gavin Newsom's lawless Los Angeles."
Breyer's ruling did not issue any order regarding the presence of the Marines, though attorneys for the state also asked for their deployment to be ended. In his comments, Newsom said it still "doesn't appear" they've actually been deployed in Los Angeles, though he said the were in another location for training exercises. In the hearing Thursday, Breyer said he could not rule on the Marines, indicating that their deployment wasn't clear yet.
Laura Fitzgerald covers California politics for CapRadio
Copyright 2025 NPR