Trump ordered to return control of California National Guard to governor
Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2025, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: CNBC
Published Thu, Jun 12 2025 9:04 PM EDT Updated 2 Min Ago
A federal judge late Thursday ruled that the federalization of parts of California’s National Guard by President Donald Trump was “illegal,” and ordered Trump to return control of the Guard to state Gov. Gavin Newsom “forthwith.”
But Judge Charles Breyer stayed his temporary restraining order from taking effect until 3 p.m. ET on Friday to allow the Trump administration to appeal his decision. The administration promptly did just that, asking the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to block Breyer’s ruling from taking effect.
Trump, over the past week, had federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard, and mobilized another approximately 700 U.S. Marines to respond to protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement actions. Newsom and California’s attorney general sued to reverse Trump’s federalization of the Guard without the consent of the governor, the first time in U.S. history a president had taken such an action.
Breyer’s order came hours after a hearing held in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where he sharply questioned lawyers for the federal government on Trump’s rationale and authority for the move. At one point, the judge said, “We live in response to a monarchy,” noting that there is a difference between the president and King George III, the British monarch on the throne at the time of the American Revolution.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/12/trump-guard-california-newsom602riya.html
Link to RULING (PDF viewer) - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/64/newsom-v-trump/
Link to RULING (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.64.0_1.pdf
Article updated.
Previous articles -
A federal judge late Thursday ruled that the federalization of parts of California's National Guard by President Donald Trump was "illegal," and ordered Trump to return control of the Guard to state Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Judge Charles Breyer stayed his own order from taking effect until 3 p.m. ET on Friday to allow the Trump administration to appeal his decision. The administration promptly did just that, asking the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to block Breyer's order from taking effect.
Trump over the past week had federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard, and mobilized another approximately 700 U.S. Marines, to respond to protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement actions. Newsom and California's attorney general sued to reverse Trump's federalization of the Guard without the consent of the governor.
Breyer's order came hours after a hearing held in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where he sharply questioned lawyers for the federal government on Trump rationale and authority for the highly unusual actions. "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," Breyer wrote in his order.
"His actions were illegal -- both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith," the judge wrote.
A federal judge late Thursday ruled that the federalization of parts of California's National Guard by President Donald Trump was "illegal," and ordered Trump to return control of the Guard to state Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Judge Charles Breyer stayed his own order from taking effect until 3 p.m. ET on Friday to allow the Trump administration to appeal his decision.
Trump had federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard, and mobilized another approximately 700 U.S. Marines in the past week, to respond to protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement actions.
Newsom praised the order, which came within hours of a San Francisco federal court hearing where Breyer questioned Trump's rational for the highly unusual actions. "The court just confirmed what we all know -- the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets," Newsom said in a post on X.
"This win is not just for California, but the nation," Newsom wrote. "It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day. End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now, @realDonaldTrump. History is watching."
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
A federal judge late Thursday ruled that the federalization of parts of California's National Guard by President Donald Trump was "illegal," and ordered Trump to return control of the Guard to state Gov. Gavin Newsom.
But Judge Charles Breyer stayed his own order from taking effect until 3 p.m. ET on Friday to allow the Trump administration to appeal his decision.
Trump had federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard, and mobilized another approximately 700 U.S. Marines in the past week, to respond to protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement actions.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Original article -
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Added it to the OP with the latest update.
Grisham knows what she's doing. She's amazing. 
There's nothing for Trump to deploy if they're already deployed. 
It is a master work of judicial writing. Judge Breyer has fact found Taco out of court. He then masterfully ties the facts to the law. Citing the dictionary definitions of rebellion from the time the statute was drafted was brilliant.
I very much appreciate those in the know helping me to understand 
Sort of a moral version of the resistance to desegregation going on, but similar battle over the legalese of who (Governor or President) can do what & when.
consult with them or consent to the federalization of California’s National Guard, they did
not issue their orders through him, and thus failed to comply with § 12406."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
It looks like Wallace and Faubus never challenged on these grounds, that I can see? But it'd be a similar situation where the Governor and President are in dissent as to how the Guard should be used. Looks like a very good challenge that hooked Dumpf on some details that the racist governors never considered. Hate can blind a persons judgement.
Also some good discussion within on the definitions of insurrection, rebellion, etc. Basically, just because some of the protestors were violent, doesn't take away the right of the other protestors to assemble.
honestly, their reaction to J6 seriously negates all their silly arguments about "rebellion" 
