Summary
The Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal of a district court temporary restraining order that had enjoined the federalization and deployment of California National Guard members in Los Angeles. The court held that the President’s authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 was subject to judicial review, but that review was highly deferential under longstanding precedent. The court concluded that the President likely acted lawfully under § 12406(3), that the order likely satisfied the statute’s requirement that it be issued through the Governor, and that the remaining stay factors favored the defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the district court's TRO, or could grant a stay under the All Writs Act.
- Whether the President's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 was subject to judicial review or was barred by the political question doctrine.
- Whether, under highly deferential review, the President likely had statutory authority under § 12406(3) because he was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
- Whether the federalization order likely satisfied § 12406's requirement that orders be issued through the Governor.
- Whether the alleged statutory violation supported the scope of the district court's injunction and whether the remaining stay factors favored a stay.
Holdings
- The court had authority under the All Writs Act to grant a stay pending appeal, and the TRO possessed the qualities and practical effect of a preliminary injunction, making it effectively reviewable as an interlocutory injunction.
- The political question doctrine did not bar judicial review because the President invoked statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 rather than an independent constitutional authority.
- The President's determination that a § 12406 predicate exists is not completely insulated from review, but review is highly deferential and permits at least examination for a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment.
- Defendants made a strong showing that the President likely acted within his statutory authority under § 12406(3), which permits federalization when the President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
- The federalization order likely satisfied § 12406's procedural requirement because the Secretary of Defense transmitted it to California's Adjutant General, who was authorized under state law to issue orders in the Governor's name and forwarded the materials to Governor Newsom. The Governor had no veto or consent power.
- Even if Defendants violated § 12406's procedural requirement, the violation would not justify an injunction prohibiting the President from exercising his lawful authority to federalize the National Guard; any relief would have to be narrowly tailored to the procedural defect.
- Irreparable harm, injury to the opposing parties, and the public interest favored Defendants, supporting a stay pending appeal.
Key quotations
“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 is completely insulated from judicial review.” (at 1034)
“The source of the President’s power to federalize the National Guard is statutory, not constitutional. Consequently, the political question doctrine does not bar judicial review.” (at 1046)
“Consistent with Martin, courts may at least review the President’s determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a “range of honest judgment.”” (at 1052)
“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3).” (at 1055)
“Even if Defendants failed to comply with § 12406’s procedural requirement, Governor Newsom had no power to veto or countermand the President’s order.” (at 1058)
Factual background
In June 2025, protesters in Los Angeles interfered with federal immigration-enforcement operations, attacked federal officers, damaged federal buildings and vehicles, and disrupted federal facilities. President Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize 4,000 California National Guard members for 60 days to protect federal personnel and property. The Secretary of Defense transmitted the federalization orders to California's Adjutant General, who forwarded them to Governor Newsom. The district court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing that the statutory predicates were absent and that the order was not issued through the Governor.
Procedural history
California and Governor Gavin Newsom sued federal officials and the Department of Defense, challenging the President's federalization of California National Guard members under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The district court granted a TRO enjoining deployment of the Guard in Los Angeles and ordering control returned to the Governor. The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay, heard argument, and granted Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal.