The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling on December 31, ordering the Trump administration to return control of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. The Department of Justice ceased contesting the case rather than continue the appeal. Trump announced the withdrawal via Truth Social with a promise: “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again.” That statement reveals the administration’s strategic calculation. The courts blocked one legal path to deploy federal troops. Trump is signaling he knows which alternative paths remain open.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued the preliminary injunction on December 10, finding that President Trump violated 10 U.S.C. §12406 by maintaining federalized troops six months after any emergency had ended. The statute allows federalizing the National Guard when there is an invasion, a rebellion, or when the President is unable to execute federal laws with regular forces. Breyer ruled none of these conditions existed in Los Angeles. He also found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using military forces for domestic law enforcement. “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances,” Breyer wrote. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”
The deployment began in June 2025 when Trump federalized 4,000 California National Guard members and sent 700 Marines to Los Angeles during immigration enforcement protests. Governor Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued immediately. Breyer issued a temporary restraining order on June 12, but the Ninth Circuit stayed that order hours later, allowing the federalization to continue. On September 2, after a three-day trial, Breyer ruled the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The Ninth Circuit granted another stay. On October 22, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc with ten judges dissenting, signaling judicial sentiment was shifting. By late October, the administration had drawn down to approximately 300 Guard members. When the Ninth Circuit upheld Breyer’s December 10 order, the DOJ stopped contesting.
Judge Charles Breyer issued the preliminary injunction that ended the deployment. Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta sued and won. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass opposed the deployment from the start, calling it “purposefully inflammatory.”
Newsom framed the outcome as vindication. “I’m glad President Trump has finally admitted defeat,” he said. “We’ve said all along the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal.” Attorney General Bonta added: “Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force.” But Trump’s statement frames this differently—not as defeat, but as tactical retreat before using “a much different and stronger form” of authority.
Four alternative legal paths remain available, as the High Country Advocate documented last week in analysis of the Supreme Court’s December 23 ruling on Trump’s attempted National Guard deployment to Chicago. The Insurrection Act allows the President to use military forces when domestic violence makes enforcing federal law “impracticable,” with no requirement to try regular forces first. Active-duty military can protect federal facilities under Article II authority without invoking the statute the courts blocked. Section 12406 can still be used if the President makes explicit findings about why regular military forces are unavailable. And three Supreme Court justices—Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—explicitly identified inherent constitutional authority to protect federal personnel independent of any statute.
The distinction matters between what happened in California and scenarios that would support alternative authorities. California involved a deployment extending six months after protests subsided, with local law enforcement fully capable of managing demonstrations. The Chicago case involved ongoing attacks on ICE facilities where organized rioters used shields, gas masks, and weapons to ram federal vehicles and fire at agents. More than 30 federal officers were hospitalized while local police refused to respond. That fact pattern fits the Insurrection Act’s requirements far better than §12406’s conditions ever did.
History shows successful federal deployments occurred when governors requested assistance or when large-scale violence exceeded local law enforcement capacity. President George H.W. Bush federalized the California National Guard under the Insurrection Act during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance. Six days of rioting left 63 dead and caused up to $1 billion in damages. Over 13,500 troops deployed. President Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers traveling from Selma to Montgomery after Governor George Wallace refused, marking the last time before 2025 that a president federalized the National Guard without governor cooperation. The National Guard could have been deployed on January 6, 2021. The Guard was eventually deployed hours later after the Capitol was breached. Trump’s California deployment fit neither pattern. Local law enforcement never requested Guard assistance. The protests did not create widespread disorder beyond local police capability.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does not establish that federal troops can never deploy to protect federal operations. It establishes that §12406 does not apply when local law enforcement is capable and no emergency exists. It establishes that the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using military forces for domestic law enforcement functions. And it establishes that a president cannot maintain federalized National Guard troops indefinitely based on speculation about potential future protests. The California ruling closed one door while leaving four others available when facts support their use.
Trump’s “different and stronger form” statement signals he understands this. The administration backed down from an extended deployment under a statute the courts ruled inapplicable rather than fight a losing appeal. The retreat preserves alternative authorities for future scenarios where federal officers face actual ongoing attacks and local police refuse to respond. The courts taught the administration which legal path doesn’t work for which fact pattern. Trump’s statement suggests the lesson was learned.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 