The Trump administration asked to walk away from its own appeal. The Ninth Circuit said no. Then it ruled against the President anyway. In a 2-1 National Guard ruling on Friday, Oct. 23, the court held that President Trump unlawfully federalized about 4,000 California Guard troops during the 2025 Los Angeles immigration protests.
Naturally, Governor Gavin Newsom is celebrating. However, the bigger story is how the court got there, and what it means the next time federal officers come under attack.
Key Takeaways
- A Ninth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the June 2025 federalization of the California National Guard was unlawful.
- The court refused the administration’s request to dismiss its own appeal, partly to prevent what it called manipulation of precedent.
- Judge Mark Bennett dissented and said the court should have let the appeal go.
- The published opinion will bind future Ninth Circuit panels unless the full court or the Supreme Court steps in.
What the National Guard Ruling Says
In June 2025, protests broke out in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids. In response, the President invoked a federal law, 10 U.S.C. 12406, to put 4,000 Guard members under federal control for 60 days. Their mission was to protect federal property and personnel, according to the court’s opinion.
Judge Jennifer Sung wrote for the majority, and Judge Eric Miller joined her. The court found that neither provision the administration relied on applied. First, it leaned on the Supreme Court’s December 2025 order in Trump v. Illinois. Next, it rejected the claim that Los Angeles faced a rebellion. That claim, Sung wrote, did not reflect “a colorable assessment within a ‘range of honest judgment.’”
Notably, the same panel had sided with Trump in June 2025. Back then, it said the President “likely acted within his authority”. The Supreme Court’s Illinois order changed that math, The Hill reported.
The Appeal Trump Tried to Drop
Above all, this is the part conservatives should watch closely. After the Illinois decision, the government moved on Jan. 23, 2026, to dismiss its own appeal. Normally, courts grant those requests as routine. In fact, the panel’s order admits that “in the normal course, we routinely grant such motions.”
This time, the majority refused. It gave three reasons. First, the case was fully argued, and the judges had already begun drafting an opinion. In addition, the court said a ruling still mattered. It quoted the President’s own post that the Guard would “come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form”. Finally, it said denying dismissal would “curtail strategic behavior” and prevent a party from manipulating the formation of precedent.
In other words, the government tried to step back, and the court stepped forward to write binding law against it.
Judge Bennett’s Dissent
Judge Bennett, a Trump appointee like Miller, disagreed. “I also see no signs of gamesmanship,” he wrote. He added that “there is nothing wrong or improper about changing one’s litigation strategy based on intervening authority from the Supreme Court.”
He also pointed to Oregon v. Trump. There, an en banc Ninth Circuit court let the government drop a similar appeal. “In my view, nothing distinguishes that motion from this motion,” Bennett wrote. Meanwhile, he warned that the majority was “relying primarily on outdated briefs prepared amid a shifting legal landscape.”
Why This National Guard Ruling Matters Beyond California
To be fair, Los Angeles was not a peaceful afternoon. The district court record describes rocks, a Molotov cocktail, a burned car, a looted gas station, and an officer briefly trapped in her vehicle. Even the majority conceded the government has “a legitimate interest in protecting federal personnel and property.”
Still, the court stressed that the Constitution gives Congress the power to call forth the Guard. In other words, the President gets only the slice Congress hands him. Under this ruling, protecting federal officers is not enough on its own. That matters for every ICE agent and federal building in the West, especially as immigration enforcement continues.
There is a fair conservative answer here. If the law is too narrow to protect federal officers, Congress should rewrite it. Judges should not be left to guess at the line one riot at a time.
What Comes Next
The deployment is already over, according to The Hill. Even so, the opinion now binds future Ninth Circuit panels. Next, the administration could seek en banc rehearing or petition the Supreme Court. The White House did not immediately comment on Friday.
Newsom, for his part, called the decision “a crucial day for the rule of law” in a statement. He also tied it to next month’s elections. Clearly, that tells you how much politics now rides on this fight. As we saw in the New Hampshire student ID case, the Supreme Court often gets the final word on these battles.
For now, judicial restraint lost a round. The question is whether the Supreme Court will want the last word.
Follow World of Payne for More
For more conservative commentary on the courts, the Constitution, and the Trump administration, visit the World of Payne homepage. Then follow the show on X, Facebook, and Instagram, and share this post with a friend who cares about the separation of powers.
