Appeals Court Pauses Ruling on Federal Troops in Los Angeles

A federal appeals court on Tuesday, September 10, 2025, issued a stay on a lower court's ruling that had found the Trump administration's deployment of federal troops—specifically National Guard units—in Los Angeles to be unlawful. The original order, handed down by Senior District Judge Charles Breyer on September 2, determined that the administration had "willfully" violated federal law by sending troops to perform law enforcement duties beyond their usual authority, including crowd control and traffic blockades during protests over immigration raids in early June. Judge Breyer's order was set to take effect on September 12, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now put it on hold pending further review.[1][2][4]

Legal Uncertainty and Political Tensions

The appeals court's administrative stay does not address the merits of the case but effectively suspends the enforcement of Judge Breyer's injunction while the lawsuit proceeds. This means the 300 National Guard troops currently deployed in Los Angeles will remain in place for now, despite concerns raised by California officials that their continued presence amounts to a "form of military occupation" during a period of heightened political activity, including the upcoming congressional map vote on November 4.[1][2]

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have challenged the federalization of the state's National Guard, arguing that it undermines state authority and violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of federal military personnel in domestic law enforcement. The state's request for a preliminary injunction to block the extension of the deployment was also paused by Judge Breyer, who cited procedural complications due to the ongoing appeal.[1][4]

National and Local Reactions

The case has drawn national attention, with bipartisan coalitions of former governors, retired military leaders, and local governments filing amicus briefs in support of California's position. These groups argue that the federalization of the National Guard without state consultation disrupts the constitutional balance of power, inflames local tensions, and risks tragic miscalculations. Eleven retired generals warned in a court brief that such deployments could "undermine" the military's reputation and harm troop morale, emphasizing the dangers of politicizing military involvement in civilian affairs.[4][6]

President Donald Trump has defended the deployments as necessary to combat crime and maintain order, and has suggested similar actions could be taken in other major cities. Critics, however, see the moves as part of a broader pattern of federal overreach and a threat to civil liberties. The appeals court's decision is viewed as a practical win for the administration, allowing the status quo to continue while legal arguments are weighed.[2][4]

Next Steps in the Legal Battle

With the Ninth Circuit's stay in place, California officials may now seek relief directly from the appeals court. The outcome of the case could set a significant precedent regarding the limits of presidential authority to deploy federal troops domestically, especially in the context of law enforcement and public protests. As the legal process unfolds, the presence of National Guard troops in Los Angeles remains a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over federal and state powers.