Appeals court judges grapple with whether Trump unlawfully federalized members of California’s National Guard

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Federal Appeals Court Considers Legality of Trump's Control Over California National Guard"

Appeals court judges grapple with whether Trump unlawfully federalized members of California’s National Guard analysis cover image CNN 7.8
Image Source: https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/2025-06-13t003809z-1632839206-rc2c1fanbrwf-rtrmadp-3-usa-migration-protest-los-angeles.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_800,c_fill
Original Article Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/california-national-guard-appeals-court
View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.8
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court engaged in a thorough examination of whether President Donald Trump unlawfully federalized members of California’s National Guard in response to unrest related to immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. The case was presented before a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which deliberated for over an hour but did not reach an immediate decision regarding the Trump administration's request to pause a federal judge's ruling. This ruling, issued by Judge Charles Breyer, mandated that Trump relinquish control over the National Guard members, citing violations of legal provisions that require presidential orders to be issued through the state governor when federalizing state troops. The judges questioned the validity of the president's actions, focusing particularly on whether the order was appropriately communicated to the state's top general instead of directly to California Governor Gavin Newsom, as required by law.

During the proceedings, Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, both appointed by Trump, expressed skepticism towards the arguments presented by California's attorney, Samuel Harbourt. They questioned the interpretation that the adjutant general could serve as a substitute for the governor in this context. California's legal stance asserts that the law mandates direct communication with Governor Newsom, allowing him the opportunity to consult with Trump regarding the federalization of the troops. The judges also probed the Trump administration's attorney on whether further legal violations occurred, particularly concerning factual predicates required for federalizing the troops. The attorney maintained that federal courts should not interfere with the president's determinations, a view that Judge Breyer had previously rejected. As this legal battle unfolds, it raises significant questions about the separation of state and federal powers and the proper channels for invoking military support in domestic situations. This developing story is expected to continue evolving as more details emerge from the court's deliberations.

TruthLens AI Analysis

You need to be a member to generate the AI analysis for this article.

Log In to Generate Analysis

Not a member yet? Register for free.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Source URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/california-national-guard-appeals-court

A federal appeals court on Tuesday spent more than an hour grappling with whether President Donald Trump unlawfully federalized thousands of members of California’s National Guard to beef up security in Los Angeles amid unrest over immigration enforcement there.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals did not immediately decide on a request from the Trump administration to pause a federal judge’s ruling that required Trump to relinquish control of the guardsman.

Judge Charles Breyer last week directed the president to do so after concluding that Trump had violated several provisions of the law he invoked in order to take control of the troops, including one that requires presidents to issue an order “through the governor” when they want to federalize state troops.

But at least two members of the panel, both appointed by Trump, appeared skeptical of that finding as they probed an attorney for California over his arguments that Trump wrongly sent the order to the state’s top general.

“It would seem like the state has made the adjutant general effectively the substitute for the governor in this context. So why wasn’t it enough that they sent it to that officer?” Judge Mark Bennett told Samuel Harbourt, an attorney for California.

Judge Eric Miller said he found the state’s arguments represented a “very roundabout way of imposing a consultation requirement” that he didn’t seem to think existed in the law.

California has argued that the law, at a very minimum, required the president to give the order directly to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would then have a chance to consult with Trump about his plans.

The two judges also pressed an attorney for the Trump administration about whether Trump violated other provisions of the law at issue, including ones that require there to be certain factual predicates before he federalized the troops.

But the attorney repeatedly made clear that he didn’t think federal courts had a role to play in second-guessing the president’s determinations – an argument Breyer rejected last week.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Back to Home
Source: CNN