Appeals Court Lets Trump Keep Troops in LA, Turning Tables on Ruling Favoring Newsom

In a dramatic legal shift that has sparked national debate, a federal appeals court ruled late Friday that former President Donald Trump may continue to deploy federal troops in Los Angeles, effectively overturning a lower court decision that had favored California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stunned state officials and civil liberties groups, many of whom viewed the original ruling as a constitutional firewall against federal overreach. The case centers on whether the federal government overstepped its authority by dispatching troops to Los Angeles in response to civil unrest without the consent of the state.

The move has reignited a fierce debate over federalism, executive power, and the limits of military involvement in domestic affairs.

The Background

The legal dispute has roots in protests that began earlier this year, following a series of high-profile police incidents in several California cities. What began as peaceful demonstrations escalated into widespread unrest in some areas of Los Angeles, with sporadic looting, vandalism, and clashes with police.

Citing a “breakdown of public order,” Trump—who is seeking re-election and has remained an active figure on the national stage—ordered federal troops into Los Angeles in April 2025 under the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely used law that allows the president to deploy military forces domestically in certain emergency situations.

Governor Newsom fiercely opposed the deployment, arguing that California did not request federal military assistance and that the situation was already under control through local and state law enforcement. He filed suit in federal court, arguing that Trump’s actions violated the Tenth Amendment and represented an unconstitutional use of force.

In May, a federal district court sided with Newsom, ordering the removal of federal troops from the city and asserting that the Insurrection Act did not justify the unilateral deployment in this case.

The Appeal and the Turnaround

Trump’s legal team quickly appealed the decision, arguing that the president had broad authority to act in the interest of national security and civil stability. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling this week sided with that argument, emphasizing the Insurrection Act’s historic flexibility and citing precedent that permits federal intervention during episodes of “widespread, uncontrolled unrest.”

“The President’s authority under the Insurrection Act, while exceptional, is not contingent on state approval in scenarios that meet the threshold of significant national disruption,” wrote Judge Stephen McMillan, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion.

Judge McMillan emphasized that the court was not taking a political position but interpreting the law as it stands. “This ruling affirms the federal government’s responsibility to preserve public safety and constitutional order when local and state mechanisms are demonstrably strained,” the decision read.

Judge Carla Rivera, a dissenting voice on the panel, criticized the majority for what she called a “dangerous expansion of executive authority” and warned that the decision could embolden future presidents to bypass state governments at will.

“This is not just about Los Angeles or California,” Rivera wrote. “It opens the door to future interventions that may be less about public safety and more about political muscle.”

Political Fallout

The ruling has immediate implications on the ground, with federal troops continuing to operate in downtown Los Angeles, guarding key federal buildings, assisting in crowd control, and coordinating with federal law enforcement agencies.

Governor Newsom expressed disappointment in the decision but pledged to continue fighting what he described as “federal encroachment on state sovereignty.”

“This is not about resisting law and order,” Newsom said at a press conference Saturday morning. “It’s about maintaining the constitutional balance between state and federal powers. California didn’t ask for these troops, and we don’t need them.”

Trump, meanwhile, hailed the ruling as a “win for law, order, and common sense,” claiming that “Democrat-run cities have repeatedly failed to keep their people safe.”

“California’s leaders chose chaos over safety,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform. “I chose to act.”

Legal and Historical Implications

Constitutional scholars are divided on the long-term implications of the decision. While some argue the court merely clarified the use of an established statute, others fear it may set a precedent for a more aggressive federal posture in future domestic disturbances.

“The Insurrection Act has always been a legal gray zone,” said Dr. Marissa Kent, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley. “It was designed for extreme situations like civil war or rebellion. Using it in modern protests, even chaotic ones, stretches its intent. But the court has now affirmed that stretch.”

Others noted that the court’s interpretation mirrors how the Act was invoked in the past, including during the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the 1957 integration of Little Rock schools—both instances where federal troops were deployed over state objections.

Still, critics warn that in today’s hyper-partisan environment, decisions like this risk being seen through a purely political lens, eroding public trust in both the judiciary and federal institutions.

What’s Next?

Legal experts expect Governor Newsom to petition the Supreme Court for an emergency stay and a full review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Meanwhile, civil rights groups have also begun filing separate lawsuits challenging specific actions taken by federal troops in Los Angeles.

While the presence of troops has quelled some unrest, tensions remain high in parts of the city, with activists planning continued protests against both the military deployment and the court’s decision.

“This is not the end of the conversation,” said community organizer Alondra Reyes. “We have to ask ourselves: who gets to decide when a city needs military intervention? And who holds that power accountable?”

For now, federal troops remain in Los Angeles — a visible symbol of the enduring tug-of-war between state autonomy and federal authority in America’s ever-evolving constitutional landscape.