A panel of appeals court judges challenged some of California’s main arguments in its attempt to block President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

On Tuesday, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments regarding the Trump administration’s request for a stay, aiming to prevent a lower court’s order for Trump to transfer control of California’s National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom.

The judges’ questions mostly leaned against California’s position, suggesting skepticism of its legal stance.

“Where does the law say that issuing orders through the governor requires consent or consultation? Where does it say that in the statute?” asked Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee.

The relevant law Trump cited to invoke federal authority over California’s National Guard states that “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors,” according to the law.

4

California’s Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt argued that the law implies Newsom “needs to be consulted or at least made aware” before such orders are issued.

“They could do the entire process without consulting the governor, then just list his name on the document,” Harbourt said.

Judge Bennett suggested the court might consider the phrase “through the governors” as a procedural requirement rather than a consent clause, raising questions about potential legal issues.

The law provides three emergency conditions—threats of invasion, rebellion, or legal inability—that justify a president mobilizing state National Guard units as needed.

Throughout oral arguments, some judges pointed out that similar legal language has historically required specific approval, citing cases like Martin v. Mott (1827), which affirmed presidential power to call on state militias.

Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by Biden, primarily questioned California’s stance. She pointed out the precedent in Martin v. Mott, arguing that the current law’s wording aligns with earlier rulings granting presidential authority.

4

California officials, including Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, initially challenged the use of federal authority to override state control over the National Guard.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, son of ex-SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer, sided with California, allowing Newsom to regain control of about 4,000 National Guard members mobilized by Trump.

The Trump administration sought a stay from the Ninth Circuit, which last week temporarily blocked Breyer’s order to consider the case further.

This marks the first time a president has used federal authority to mobilize California’s National Guard since the 1992 Rodney King riots, and the first such use since Lyndon Johnson’s intervention in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers against Alabama Governor George Wallace.