Judge Delays Hearing on Troops in LA, Leaving Them Under Trump’s Control for Now

Armed military troops will remain in Los Angeles and under President Donald Trump’s command for now after a federal judge delayed a hearing Friday in California’s case challenging his authority to dispatch them in response to immigration protests.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer asked lawyers for the federal government and the state of California to submit legal arguments by Monday on how the case should proceed, after an appeals court sided with Trump and blocked an earlier ruling of Breyer’s.

Late Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed — or suspended — Breyer’s June 12 temporary restraining order that had directed Trump to hand back control of the 4,000 California National Guard troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit panel wrote that the restraining order was essentially a preliminary injunction, which Breyer said made his Friday hearing moot since it had initially been scheduled to weigh whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

The appeals court panel, made up of two judges appointed by Trump and one appointed by former President Joe Biden, ruled that the White House was likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Although the panel rejected the federal government’s argument that the courts should not even be considering the case, it wrote that any judicial review must be “highly deferential.”

The panel also said Trump “likely” acted within his authority when he invoked a rarely used legal provision that allows a president to deploy federal service members if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

However, the appeals panel made clear that its decision only addresses whether the president had the authority to call up the troops and does not yet consider what those troops are allowed to do on the streets of L.A. And it did not address one of California’s main legal claims: that the president’s actions violate an 1878 law, known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars using the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Breyer asked lawyers for both sides to submit written arguments by Monday at noon on whether he has the authority to modify the appeals court ruling based on the Posse Comitatus Act.

“Depending on what you say, because I am actually interested in what authority I have, I will decide what to do next,” Breyer said. “Maybe I’ll have a hearing, maybe I won’t — I don’t know. You will tell me what to do. … My guess is you might disagree.”

California Supervising Deputy Attorney General Jane Reilley also asked the court to consider whether there are any limits on how long the state National Guard troops can be federalized.

Friday’s hearing was initially scheduled so Breyer could consider California’s request for the court to hand control of the National Guard troops back to Newsom and bar the federal government from using the remaining troops to conduct any law enforcement against civilians.

The White House has repeatedly insisted that the troops are there solely to protect federal property and personnel, not to police civilians. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the mobilization an illegal breach of state sovereignty.

Breyer had sided with the state last week in ruling that Trump did not follow procedures set out by Congress when he federalized the troops without telling Newsom, issuing the order through the California Guard’s adjutant general instead.

But the appeals court ruled that Trump “likely met the procedural requirement” by telling the general because he is “an agent” of the governor, and judges noted that the law does not afford Newsom veto power over the president’s federalization decisions.

The court also said that “irreparable harm and the public interest” is on the president’s side due to the need to protect federal agents and property.

Trump began calling up troops June 7, eventually mobilizing 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to respond to protests in and around L.A. that broke out in response to immigration deportation raids. California sued, arguing that the mobilization was illegal because the state did not request or consent to the military deployment. Under ordinary circumstances, National Guard troops are under the command of state governors.

After the appeals court ruled Thursday, both sides claimed victory.

“BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.”

Newsom, however, noted that the appeals court rebuffed the president’s argument that the courts didn’t have the right to review the case.

“The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,” Newsom said in a statement Thursday night.

Later Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance will be in L.A. to visit with the troops deployed there.