Trump Wins Appeal, Retains Control of California National Guard in Los Angeles

Strategic Insights -

A US appeals court has sided with President Donald Trump, allowing him to maintain control of California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles despite objections from local officials and Governor Gavin Newsom. The court ruled that Trump was within his rights to order the troops to "protect federal personnel... [and] property," halting a lower court decision that found the president's actions to be illegal. The 38-page ruling maintained that Trump's decision to use the troops was not entirely insulated from judicial review.

Key Takeaways:

  • The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that President Trump had the authority to deploy the California National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in Los Angeles.
  • The decision overturns a lower court ruling that found Trump's actions to be illegal and ordered him to return control of the National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.
  • The court's ruling maintains that while Trump's decision to use the troops was lawful, it was not entirely immune to judicial review.
  • The deployment of approximately 4,000 troops to Los Angeles will continue under the president's control.
  • The court's decision was made by a unanimous vote of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Trump.
  • President Trump hailed the decision as a "big win," while Governor Newsom expressed concerns about the use of military force against citizens.

Statistics:

  • 38 pages: The length of the appellate court's ruling.
  • 4,000: The approximate number of troops deployed to Los Angeles.
  • 2: The number of appellate court judges appointed by President Trump.
  • 1: The number of appellate court judge appointed by President Joe Biden.
  • 700: The number of Marines ordered to Los Angeles by President Trump.
  • 50 years: The time period since a president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent, on the basis of civil rights era cases.

Sources:

  • Guardian (no date provided)
  • US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (no date provided)