President Donald Trump secured another legal victory against California Governor Gavin Newsom after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear a case challenging Trump’s authority to federalize National Guard troops during unrest in Los Angeles earlier this year.

In a brief order issued October 22, the Ninth Circuit denied California’s petition for an en banc rehearing in Newsom v. Trump, effectively upholding an earlier decision that affirmed the president’s authority to take command of state National Guard forces during domestic disturbances.

🚨 MAJOR TRUMP WIN: The 9th Circuit en banc sides with President Trump over Gavin Newsom, allowing President Trump to federalize the California National Guard to aid federal immigration enforcement. pic.twitter.com/RYAjDbsFUE

— Timcast News (@TimcastNews) October 23, 2025

The ruling allows President Trump to retain command of approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops who were federalized under his order during protests that erupted in Los Angeles following federal immigration enforcement operations in June.

The legal dispute began after violent demonstrations broke out on June 6, 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out raids near the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.

The operation resulted in 44 arrests and as many as 80 detentions.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The protests that followed escalated into confrontations with law enforcement, with demonstrators throwing objects at officers and damaging federal property.

The next day, President Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute permitting the president to call National Guard units into federal service “to protect federal personnel performing federal functions, and to protect federal property.”

The order activated 4,000 California National Guard members for a 60-day period to assist federal officers and maintain order around key federal facilities.

Governor Newsom immediately challenged the decision in court, arguing that the president had violated the law by failing to issue the order through the state governor, as required by statute.

Newsom claimed the move was unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power, asserting that the president had effectively seized state assets without proper consultation.

In August, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected Newsom’s argument, holding that the president acted within his statutory and constitutional authority.

The panel found that the federal government has broad discretion to assume command of state National Guard forces during periods of domestic unrest when federal property or personnel are threatened.

The governor sought a rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit, known for its historically liberal leanings.

On October 22, the court denied that request, stating that not enough judges supported further review.

The denial leaves intact the earlier ruling, which now stands as binding precedent within the circuit.

Legal analysts say the decision could have long-term implications for the relationship between the federal government and state governors during emergencies.

The ruling reinforces the president’s authority to act unilaterally when federal operations face security threats and local leaders refuse cooperation.

By declining to revisit the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively reaffirmed the limits of state resistance during federal operations and confirmed the president’s power to mobilize state troops when national interests are at stake.

The Department of Justice hailed the outcome as a critical affirmation of executive authority, emphasizing that the president’s power to ensure the protection of federal assets remains “clear and nonnegotiable under the Constitution.”

Governor Newsom’s office has not indicated whether he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal experts note that while an appeal remains possible, the Supreme Court has historically deferred to executive authority in matters involving the use of military or law enforcement power during civil unrest.

For the Trump administration, the decision marks another success in its ongoing disputes with California’s Democratic leadership, solidifying the president’s ability to act decisively in situations where state cooperation is withheld.

The ruling is expected to influence future federal responses to protests or riots that threaten federal property or personnel across the country.