Ninth Circuit Upholds Order Blocking Federal Control of California National Guard

A federal appeals court has affirmed a decision blocking the federal government’s mobilization and deployment of California National Guard members in and around Los Angeles. On October 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump Administration exceeded its statutory authority and violated the U.S. Constitution when it took control of the state’s guard troops.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision also rejected the federal government’s attempt to withdraw its appeal of an earlier temporary restraining order. The legal challenge was originally brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom after federal officials cited isolated incidents of violence as a pretext to assume command of California National Guard forces.

Federalization Orders and the Posse Comitatus Act

In June 2025, California state leadership filed a lawsuit challenging federal orders that placed state Guard units under federal control for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleged that using National Guard members for routine municipal police work violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal statute that limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement. That same week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted emergency relief, halting the order and returning command to Governor Newsom.

Later, in August 2025, state officials presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial. The federal district court granted a permanent injunction preventing similar future actions, though that specific order remains temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit holds the federal government’s appeal in abeyance. In December 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, noting that while the Constitution creates a system of checks and balances, federal officials sought a blank check.

Broader Legal Rulings Involving National Guard Deployments

The Los Angeles court case forms part of a series of legal actions addressing presidential power over state Guard units across multiple jurisdictions. In October 2025, California secured a final court ruling blocking the cross-state deployment of California National Guard members to Portland, Oregon. In that trial, attorneys for California, Oregon, and the City of Portland argued that cross-state Guard deployments exceeded federal authority and violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

California also supported legal efforts in other states, including Illinois, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. In November 2025, Attorney General Bonta submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois. The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the administration’s expansive claims regarding presidential military authority, keeping in place an order blocking Guard deployments in Chicago.

What the Ninth Circuit Ruling Means for California Residents

This appellate ruling maintains state executive control over the California National Guard, ensuring that local military troops cannot be placed into civilian law enforcement roles in Los Angeles without meeting statutory requirements. For residents, the decision reinforces constitutional limits on domestic military policing and prevents unauthorized federal executive command over state forces.

The court’s ruling leaves Governor Newsom in direct command of the state Guard in Los Angeles. Members of the public are protected from unlawful military law enforcement activities under the Posse Comitatus Act. Because the court rejected the federal government’s attempt to dismiss its own appeal, the ruling establishes binding circuit precedent against unauthorized federalization.

When public actions or federal operations raise questions about civil rights or constitutional limits on law enforcement, consulting a qualified attorney can help individuals understand their legal rights and options.

This article is general information based on California Attorney General and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 24, 2026.