Support
← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Newsom v. Trump (Nat Guard Fed 2025)

No. 25-3727 Circuit · Active
Court
9th Cir.
ca9
Argued
Oct 22, 2025
Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Filed (CL)
Jun 12, 2025
CL Status
active
The Story · What’s Happening
Update · Jun. 2025

President Trump federalized the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. Section 12406(3) and deployed troops to Los Angeles amid immigration-enforcement protests. Governor Newsom and the State of California sued, and Judge Breyer issued a temporary restraining order returning control of the Guard to the state.

Update · Jun. 19, 2025

The Ninth Circuit stayed Judge Breyer's order pending appeal, concluding that the President likely acted within his authority under Section 12406(3), which allows federalizing the Guard when the President is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws." The court said it could review the invocation only for a colorable basis made in good faith. (Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025).)

Update · 2026

The appeal remains fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit, with the parties filing supplemental-authority letters. The companion Posse Comitatus appeal (No. 25-5553) has been held in abeyance awaiting this decision.

"regular forces" statutory interpretation 10 USC 12406 APA arbitrary-&-capricious Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Appeal does not automatically stay merits Executive order authority Executive power over domestic military deployment Foreign Assistance Act of 1969 Interlocutory appeal Military support to law enforcement vs. enforcement distinction Military rules of engagement National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Posse Comitatus Act presidential removal/appointment power sealing documents / filing under seal Separation of powers temporary restraining order Threat assessment and escalation standards Threat assessment standards appropriations power bench trial birthright citizenship consent motion to dismiss equitable relief judicial review military enforcement of domestic law prohibition non-delegation doctrine notice requirements preliminary injunction preliminary injunction scope protective order for witness identity public access to judicial proceedings sealed filings standing statutory violations ultra vires authority unitary executive presidential power to deploy national guard

Legal Issues

"regular forces" statutory interpretation10 USC 12406APA arbitrary-&-capriciousAlien Enemies Act of 1798Appeal does not automatically stay meritsExecutive order authorityExecutive power over domestic military deploymentForeign Assistance Act of 1969Interlocutory appealMilitary support to law enforcement vs. enforcement distinctionMilitary rules of engagementNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Posse Comitatus Actpresidential removal/appointment powersealing documents / filing under sealSeparation of powerstemporary restraining orderThreat assessment and escalation standardsThreat assessment standardsappropriations powerbench trialbirthright citizenshipconsent motion to dismissequitable reliefjudicial reviewmilitary enforcement of domestic law prohibitionnon-delegation doctrinenotice requirementspreliminary injunctionpreliminary injunction scopeprotective order for witness identitypublic access to judicial proceedingssealed filingsstandingstatutory violationsultra vires authorityunitary executivepresidential power to deploy national guard

BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos

The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

The government appealed Judge Breyer's order entering partial judgement for the plaintiffs on California's Posse Comitatus Act claims.

Overview

The United States appealed Judge Breyer's order granting a temporary restraining order which prevents the federalization of the California National Guard by President Trump.

The Facts

In June 2025, President Trump federalized the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. Section 12406(3) and deployed troops to Los Angeles during protests over federal immigration enforcement. Governor Newsom and the State of California sued in the Northern District of California, and Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order returning control of the Guard to the state, finding the President had not satisfied the statute's criteria. The government appealed and sought a stay.

The Issue

Issue

Whether the President has constitutional and statutory authority to federalize a state's National Guard without gubernatorial consent.

The Rules

Rule

The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) restricts federal military deployment in domestic law enforcement absent congressional authorization. States retain Tenth Amendment authority over their National Guard except when Congress invokes specific emergency powers under 10 U.S.C. § 333.

The Application

Analysis

Judge Breyer found that President Trump's attempted federalization of California's National Guard without Governor Newsom's consent likely violated federalism principles and statutory limits, granting a TRO to prevent the deployment.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

The district court's TRO preventing federalization remains in effect. The United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently pending.

Court -
FiledJun 12, 2025
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →
Court -
FiledJun 12, 2025
View on CourtListener →

No Supreme Court data for this case.

3 videos on this case
Subscribe on Substack ↗ Watch on YouTube ↗

Docket

CourtListener ↗

Outcome History (1)

  1. Dec 10, 2025 District
    Preliminary injunction granted Full relief

    Judge Charles R. Breyer (CAND 3:25-cv-04870) granted preliminary injunction against federalization of California National Guard (Doc 212, 2025-12-10). Government appealed to CA9 (25-3727, filed 2025-12-11). CA9 appeal still pending. Verified against CL dockets 70496361 (district) and 70527602 (CA9).

Federal Court TMR-61c0d8d4 National Guard Deployment <br> Appeal of 3:25-cv-04870 Jul 29, 2026

Go Deeper

Related by Concept (5)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support