President Donald Trump just scored a major legal victory over California’s Governor Gavin Newsom. A unanimous Ninth Circuit ruling on Thursday affirmed Trump’s authority to federalize the California National Guard, swatting down Newsom’s claims of illegality, as Breitbart reports. The decision underscores the federal government’s primacy in times of crisis, even when progressive governors cry foul.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 38-page opinion, upheld Trump’s earlier move to mobilize the Guard to quell riots in Los Angeles, rejecting Newsom’s objections and extending a stay on a district court’s temporary restraining order.

This ruling came after Newsom and California Democrats failed to contain escalating violence in the city. The court’s clarity leaves little room for Newsom’s progressive posturing.

Earlier this month, Trump federalized the California National Guard to address rampant unrest in Los Angeles, where federal property was damaged and federal employees were injured. Newsom argued the move was illegal, claiming Trump sidestepped consultation with the governor’s office. His objection reeks of political theater, prioritizing state control over public safety.

Court rejects Newsom's claims

The Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel, including two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, found Trump likely to prevail on the case’s merits. The court ruled that Trump’s power to federalize the Guard, while not unreviewable, demands highly deferential judicial scrutiny. Newsom’s attempt to challenge this authority crumbled under legal precedent.

Newsom’s primary grievance centered on Trump’s failure to consult him before issuing the federalization order. The court, however, determined that Trump met procedural requirements by informing the governor, as required by 10 U.S.C. § 12406. This technicality exposes Newsom’s argument as more about optics than substance.

Even if a procedural misstep occurred, the court ruled it wouldn’t negate Trump’s authority to federalize the Guard. The federalization was legally grounded in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which permits the President to act when regular forces can’t enforce U.S. laws. Newsom’s objections, it seems, were more about resisting Trump than protecting Californians.

Procedural details clarified

The secretary of Defense transmitted the federalization order to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, who is authorized to issue orders in the governor’s name. The court found this process likely satisfied the requirement that orders be issued “through” the governor. Newsom’s complaints about being bypassed don’t hold water when the law was followed.

The court also concluded that any procedural violation wouldn’t justify the district court’s temporary restraining order. Evidence from the TRO hearing showed federalized Guard members focused solely on protecting federal personnel and property. This precision undercuts Newsom’s narrative of federal overreach.

Newsom argued that federalizing the Guard risks escalating tensions in Los Angeles and hampers its state duties, like fighting wildfires or drug trafficking. Yet the court found that factors like irreparable harm, injury to plaintiffs, and public interest all favored Trump’s administration. Protecting federal assets trumps Newsom’s hypothetical concerns.

Tenth Amendment argument fails

The ruling also dispatched Newsom’s Tenth Amendment claim, which hinged on his statutory argument and collapsed alongside it. Both parties agreed that the constitutional issue was tied to the legality of the federalization. Newsom’s attempt to wrap his case in states’ rights rhetoric failed to sway the judges.

During the Los Angeles riots, federal property was vandalized, and federal employees faced injuries, justifying Trump’s swift action.

Newsom’s failure to control the chaos left a vacuum that federal intervention filled. His progressive policies, it appears, couldn’t match the moment’s demands.

Despite the ruling, Newsom continues to insist Trump’s federalization was illegal, signaling potential appeals to the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

His defiance seems more about rallying his base than addressing the legal merits. Persistence in this fight risks further embarrassment for California’s governor.

Implications for federal authority

The Ninth Circuit’s decision reinforces the president’s broad authority over the National Guard in times of national unrest. By upholding Trump’s actions, the court signaled that procedural nitpicking won’t override federal prerogative. Newsom’s resistance, while politically expedient, misjudged the legal landscape.

The ruling also highlights the limits of state resistance to federal power, particularly when public safety is at stake. Newsom’s claims of worsened tensions or impaired state functions didn’t persuade the court, which prioritized federal interests. Progressive governors may think twice before challenging such authority again.

Trump’s legal win in the Ninth Circuit is a rebuke to Newsom’s governance and a nod to federal supremacy in crises. While Newsom may appeal, the unanimous ruling sets a high bar for overturning this decision. For now, the law stands firmly with Trump, and California’s governor is left grasping at straws.