Donald Trump Scores Major Legal Win Over Gavin Newsom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has opted not to rehear the case Newsom v. Trump en banc (i.e., before the full bench), thereby leaving intact the earlier panel decision that allows Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as President, to retain federal control over the California National Guard troops who were deployed in Los Angeles in connection with this year’s protests. 

The order, dated October 22, 2025, states that a majority of the active, non-recused judges did not favor rehearing the matter en banc. 

Why this matters

The case carries significant implications for the scope of presidential authority in domestic settings. By letting the earlier decision stand, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed that the President can federalize state-controlled military forces (in this case the California National Guard) under certain circumstances of domestic unrest. This ruling may thereby broaden executive reach into what has traditionally been the domain of state governors and civilian law enforcement. 

It raises core constitutional concerns: the relationship between federal and state power, the proper role of military forces in domestic affairs (especially in peacetime), and how future administrations might interpret or invoke emergency statutes to federalize state troops for protest or civil-disturbance scenarios without the explicit consent of the state executive.

Background: From protests to court

The controversy emerged after law-enforcement action in Los Angeles. On June 6, 2025, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carried out immigration raids in Los Angeles ( resulting in 44 arrests and about 70-80 detentions), which stirred sizable protests near the Metropolitan Detention Center. Whether through objects thrown at officers or minor property damage to federal installations, the demonstrations became confrontational.

In response, President Trump on June 7 invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize roughly 4,000 California National Guard members for a 60-day period “to protect federal personnel performing federal functions, and to protect federal property.”

Governor Gavin Newsom objected to the move, arguing that the situation was under control by state and local authorities and that the federalization bypassed required procedures (specifically the statute’s directive that orders be issued “through” the state governor). The state filed suit on June 9 in the Northern District of California, claiming the deployment exceeded presidential authority and violated the state’s sovereignty.

A district-court judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), finding that the President “did not follow the congressionally mandated procedure” and that his actions violated the Tenth Amendment. The government promptly appealed. On June 19 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel granted a stay of the TRO, holding that while the President’s decision is reviewable, the standard of review should be highly deferential—and concluding that it was “likely” the President lawfully exercised his authority under § 12406(3). The panel also found that transmitting the order to California’s Adjutant General “likely satisfied” the requirement that the order go through the Governor. 

The appeal and the en banc decision

On October 22, 2025, the Ninth Circuit formally denied rehearing en banc in case No. 25-3727, thus preserving the earlier panel decision. 

In a strongly worded statement, Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon (joined by ten other judges) wrote that this case “presents an issue of the gravest consequence: the peacetime deployment of military troops in American cities.” She warned that the panel’s decision could “invite presidents, now and in the future, to deploy military troops … in response to commonplace, short-lived, domestic disturbances whose containment conventionally falls to local and federal law-enforcement units.” 

Judge Ronald M. Gould dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the full court should have taken up the matter immediately because of the “potential for executive overreach” and the likelihood that similar disputes will arise in the future. 

What’s next

With the en banc rehearing denied, the prior panel decision remains the controlling precedent within the Ninth Circuit. The California National Guard thus remains under federal authority for the duration of the deployment order. This outcome constitutes a significant legal win for President Trump in his disputes with Democratic-led states over the boundaries of presidential power. 

The next procedural step is that the appellate panel must issue its full merits decision, and the state could seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) if the state chooses to petition. The case also increases the chances of a circuit split (given similar cases progressing in other circuits) which could prompt Supreme Court intervention.

Source: Newsweek