Was the National Guard deployment to Los Angeles unlawful, and what about the Posse Comitatus Act?

What the Ninth Circuit decided

The court kept in place an early order blocking the federal government from deploying California National Guard members in Los Angeles and requiring it to return control to Governor Gavin Newsom. The published court documents say Judges Jennifer Sung and Eric Miller decided for the court, while Judge Mark Bennett disagreed. If you're dealing with a problem in California right now, this ruling has clear limits. It doesn't tell you how a different operation would be judged, and you can find California law firms that can help with a problem of your own.

The case grew out of protests against immigration raids in early June 2025. The President relied on § 12406 and ordered 4,000 Guard members under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property and personnel. The court faced a narrower question than the politics around the protests: whether either part of that law allowed that order.

Why the court said this National Guard order was unlawful

The government relied on two parts of § 12406. Under part (3), it said the President could take control of the Guard when the regular military could not enforce federal law. The court applied *Trump v. Illinois*, a Supreme Court order issued while it was considering this challenge. It said the government had not shown either of two things it needed: that federal law gave the regular military the job of enforcing the laws at issue, or that the regular military could not do it.

The government also called conditions in Los Angeles a rebellion or the danger of one under part (2). The majority did not deny that some people committed violence. It held that what the President had in front of him on June 7 did not justify calling it a rebellion or the danger of one. The trial court had found the violence was scattered and spontaneous, not organized. That is why the opinion says the President's order went beyond what the law allows and intruded on Congress's power to decide when a state Guard can be placed under federal control.

A governor's objection was part of the dispute, but the court focused on the federal law and the facts of this order. If you were mistreated by officers during an operation, a civil rights lawyer may be able to explain your options. Questions about a local government's role can involve government and municipal law.

How the case got here

This ruling goes the other way from the panel's June 2025 emergency order, which had let federal control continue during the appeal. In between, the Supreme Court's order in a similar Illinois case changed how courts read § 12406(3). The Ninth Circuit decided the main question with that order in mind.

An early court order applies while a case goes on. To issue one, a court considers whether California is likely to win, whether waiting could cause harm that cannot later be fixed, and whether stepping in now serves the public interest. This decision gives lower courts in California and eight other Western states a rule they must follow, but it did not resolve every remaining claim in the trial-court case. If a later court order affects you, an appeals lawyer can tell you the deadlines that apply.

1. June 7, 2025

   The President orders 4,000 California Guard members under federal control for 60 days under § 12406.

2. June 12, 2025

   The trial court issues a temporary restraining order, an early order, blocking deployment of the Guard in Los Angeles and ordering the Guard back under the Governor's control.

3. June 19, 2025

   The Ninth Circuit pauses that early court order while the federal appeal goes on.

4. December 10, 2025

   In a separate ruling, the trial court blocks later orders that extended the deployment. The government appeals.

5. October 23, 2026

   The Ninth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, keeps the early court order against the June 7 order in place. In a separate order, with all three judges agreeing, it dismisses the government's appeal of the extension ruling.

What the ruling does not decide

The decision does not say that the National Guard can never be put under federal control, that a President always needs a governor's permission, or that every protest-related deployment is unlawful. It says that the federal government did not show that either § 12406(2) or § 12406(3) allowed this June 2025 order based on the facts in this case.

It also doesn't decide the separate legal challenge under the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal law that generally bars using the military as a police force. The trial court permanently barred the government from using the deployed Guard members for policing that violates that law. But the Ninth Circuit temporarily put that order on hold on September 4, 2025, and put the appeal, No. 25-5553, on hold on January 12, 2026. The October 23 rulings do not decide that appeal. A second order that day dismissed No. 25-7781, the separate appeal over the later extension orders. So a ruling on who controls the Guard is not the last word on soldiers doing police work.

Why control of the Guard was the central question

A National Guard unit is not always under the same control. The majority explained that California Guard members work for the state unless the federal government lawfully takes control of them. A valid order changes them to federal personnel. The dispute was therefore not simply about whether troops were present in Los Angeles. It was about whether the President met the conditions Congress set before taking control of a state Guard unit.

That difference also explains the court's reasoning based on the Constitution. The panel said that if the June 7 order was not valid under § 12406, the Guard members still worked for the state for this constitutional question. The majority then concluded that requiring state Guard members to help enforce federal law likely broke the constitutional rule against ordering state officers to carry out federal work. That isn't a rule about every Guard mission. The opinion says Congress can authorize federal control when the law's conditions are met.

The decision asks two questions in order. First, did the federal government have the power under this law to change who controlled the Guard in these circumstances? Second, what follows if it did not? That sequence is why the majority focused on the limit on federal control, rather than treating every military presence near a protest as automatically unlawful.

What changes now, and what does not

The immediate result is a published Ninth Circuit decision keeping an early court order against the June 2025 Los Angeles order in place. Courts in California and the other Western states the Ninth Circuit covers now have its reasoning on where the two parts of § 12406 the government used stop. It does not turn a past ruling into an on-the-spot answer for a new order built on different facts or a different law.

If you're caught up in an actual enforcement operation, the details still matter: which agency acted, what order or law it said allowed the action, where and when it happened, and what order is in force. It's one of several 2026 rulings on the limits of government power, but no ruling can answer your own legal question without those facts.

What you should verify next

Write these details down: they're what a lawyer will ask for. Never confront an officer or ignore an order to get them. If a deployment, arrest, protest-related charge, immigration operation or other government action has affected you, our legal help page can point you to the kind of lawyer to contact.

1. The date, location and agency involved in any current operation affecting you.
2. Whether the operation involves a Guard unit under federal control, active-duty service members, local law enforcement or another agency.
3. The specific order, notice or court case being cited, rather than relying on a headline about this case.
4. Any deadline in a notice or court order, and whether you need prompt advice about your own situation.