The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied en banc rehearing in Newsom v. Trump, successfully upholding the sooner panel choice that sided with Trump and affirmed his authority to federalize the California Nationwide Guard to help federal immigration enforcement.
When California officers refused to cooperate with federal brokers, Trump invoked § 12406(3), federalizing and deploying 4,000 members of the California Nationwide Guard to Los Angeles to safe ICE services and restore order.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California sued over President Trump’s order, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated state sovereignty.
Newsom wrote on the time:
“We’re suing Donald Trump. This can be a manufactured disaster. He’s creating worry and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. structure. The unlawful order he signed may permit him to ship the navy into ANY STATE HE WISHES. Each governor — purple or blue — ought to reject this outrageous overreach. There’s a whole lot of hyperbole on the market. This isn’t that. That is an unmistakable step towards authoritarianism that threatens the muse of our republic. We can’t let it stand.”
NEW: We’re suing Donald Trump.
This can be a manufactured disaster. He’s creating worry and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. structure.
The unlawful order he signed may permit him to ship the navy into ANY STATE HE WISHES.
Each governor — purple or…
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025
US District Choose Charles Breyer (brother of retired SCOTUS Breyer), a Clinton appointee, granted Newsom a Short-term Restraining Order (TRO) and stated Trump’s choice to federalize the National Guard was illegal.
However the appellate panel dominated that the statute clearly empowers the President to behave at any time when he’s “unable with the common forces to execute the legal guidelines of america.”
In sensible phrases, this implies the Commander-in-Chief might name Guard troops into federal service when native or federal law-enforcement personnel can’t safely or successfully implement the legislation.
After Senior Choose Marsha S. Berzon, joined by a number of liberal colleagues, requested a full-court rehearing, a vote of lively Ninth Circuit judges did not safe a majority, and rehearing en banc was denied on Wednesday. That denial makes the sooner Trump victory ultimate inside the circuit and binding precedent throughout 9 Western states.
Choose Marsha Berzon’s 38-page dissent argued that the ruling “invited presidents, now and sooner or later, to deploy navy troops… in response to commonplace, short-lived, home disturbances.”
One other dissenter, Choose Ronald Gould, fretted that Trump’s authority beneath the ruling was “nearly unfettered,” dramatically warning of “profound penalties harmful to American society” and cautioning that it may result in one other tragedy just like the one at Kent State College in 1970.
But the bulk refused to rehear the case, leaving intact the panel’s choice that Trump acted inside the legislation and that courts should afford extensive latitude to the President’s factual determinations when executing federal statutes involving nationwide protection and legislation enforcement.
Learn the ruling beneath:
