• A Federal Judge temporarily stopped National efforts. Specifically, the 9th Circuit Court blocked a judge’s order to return California National Guard control from the federal government.
• Judge ruled Trump’s deployment of Guard troops for immigration raids violated the Constitution and exceeded his authority.
• A full appeals hearing is set for Tuesday, with major implications for state vs. federal power over National Guard use.

Tension Between States and White House as Appeals Court Pauses Ruling Over National Guard Control

A simmering legal and political battle between California and the Trump administration took a dramatic turn Thursday. This occurred when a federal appeals court stepped in at the last minute to block a lower court ruling that had ordered the federal government to hand back control of the California National Guard.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay just hours before the ruling was set to take effect at noon Friday. The case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing feud between Governor Gavin Newsom and former President Donald Trump. It has reignited heated debates about state sovereignty, executive power, and the appropriate use of military force during civil unrest.

A full hearing is now scheduled for Tuesday, leaving California and the country watching closely to see what comes next.

A Judge’s Bold Rebuke of Trump’s Actions

Earlier in the day, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a respected federal judge known for his cautious yet assertive rulings, determined that Trump had overstepped his legal bounds by deploying National Guard troops in California. This followed a wave of protests in Los Angeles, which erupted in response to controversial immigration raids carried out by federal agents.

Breyer didn’t mince words. In a sharply worded decision, he declared the federal use of California’s National Guard to support immigration enforcement both unconstitutional and unauthorized. He said it violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights. It exceeded the authority granted to the president by Congress. According to Breyer, the move blurred the lines between military force and civilian law enforcement—a dangerous path in any democracy.

However, he made a clear distinction: his ruling only applied to National Guard troops under state jurisdiction. It did not apply to the Marines, who had also been sent to the region but had not yet been deployed on the streets.

Newsom Celebrates — Then Pauses

Governor Gavin Newsom, who has repeatedly clashed with Trump over immigration, environmental issues, and pandemic policies, had filed the emergency legal request to block the Guard’s continued involvement. The judge’s ruling was seen as a significant victory for Newsom. He took a firm stand against what he called “an illegal federal overreach.”

“This ruling is a win for the Constitution and the rights of Californians,” Newsom had said in a statement Thursday morning. He emphasized that state troops should not be used to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions—especially against the will of the state.

But the celebration was short-lived. Just hours later, the 9th Circuit paused the decision, signaling that the legal questions were far from resolved.

Public Reaction: Relief, Outrage, and a Sense of Whiplash

Californians, already exhausted from political tug-of-wars and high-stakes court battles, reacted with a mix of confusion and frustration.

Some welcomed the pause, believing it would give the courts time to weigh the constitutional questions carefully. Others were furious, saying the decision undermined the power of states to protect their own citizens.

“I don’t want to see soldiers patrolling our streets because of federal politics,” said L.A. resident Marisol Vargas, who joined the immigration protests. “We don’t need troops. We need justice.”

Meanwhile, conservative critics accused Newsom of turning the issue into a political stunt.

“Governor Newsom is grandstanding again,” tweeted a prominent Republican strategist. “President Trump acted to restore order. That’s what leadership looks like.”

Online, social media lit up with heated opinions, with hashtags like #HandsOffOurGuard and #FederalOverreach trending throughout the day.

Legal Tug-of-War May Set a New Precedent

The case now heading to the appeals court could have lasting implications far beyond California. At the heart of the matter is a key question. Can the president override a state’s authority over its National Guard for law enforcement purposes without that state’s consent?

Legal scholars are divided.

“This is a classic clash between state and federal power,” said constitutional law professor Amy Weiss. “What makes it especially volatile is the context—immigration enforcement, which is already one of the most polarizing issues in the country.”

Judge Breyer’s ruling leaned heavily on the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers for the states. His opinion suggested that Trump’s actions pushed dangerously close to military occupation in defiance of state authority.

But attorneys for the federal government argue that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the right to deploy troops during national emergencies. This is especially true when public safety is at risk.

What’s Next? All Eyes on Tuesday’s Hearing

The appeals court will now hear arguments on Tuesday, where lawyers for both sides will make their case. The outcome could redefine how far a president can go in using military force on U.S. soil—and what recourse states have to stop it.

If the appellate judges side with Newsom and uphold Judge Breyer’s ruling, it could severely limit future federal attempts to use the National Guard for immigration crackdowns. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of Trump could set a precedent. It might allow greater federal authority to override state objections in times of unrest.

Either way, Tuesday’s hearing promises to be a pivotal moment—not just for California, but for the balance of power in American governance.

A Deeper Conflict Beneath the Surface

What’s happening in court is just the latest chapter in a much deeper ideological war between Trump-era federalism and California’s progressive values. Over the past few years, California has emerged as the most vocal opponent of Trump’s hardline immigration policies. From sanctuary laws to lawsuits challenging the border wall, the Golden State has fought fiercely to chart its own course.

The use of the National Guard during peaceful protests, especially when tied to immigration raids, was always going to stir controversy. For many, it crossed a line. For others, it was a necessary step in restoring order.

But this case is more than a legal dispute—it’s a fight over what kind of country America wants to be.

As the sun sets on a dramatic day in courtrooms and Capitol buildings, Californians are left waiting once again—caught in the middle of a high-stakes chess match between two visions of power, freedom, and justice.

Tuesday can’t come soon enough.