The Trump administration backtracked on the Newsom case over the deployment of the National Guard

SACRAMENTO – After six months of legal wrangling, the Trump administration has abandoned its attempt to overturn a court order that would have returned control of the National Guard in Los Angeles to Gov. Gavin Newsom from California.

In a statement filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, Justice Department attorneys said they no longer oppose removing the mandate and formally withdrew their request to keep the military under federal control pending an appeal.

The move comes a week after the US Supreme Court handed Trump a temporary setback, blocking him from sending the National Guard to Chicago. In their decision, the high court cast doubt on the legal doctrine of the administration using the National Guard in domestic law enforcement activities, saying that such power is given to the president only in “extraordinary” cases.

The DOJ’s filing in court on Tuesday does not acknowledge the merits of the California lawsuit brought by Newsom, but removes a major hurdle in the process of enforcing the lower court’s decision.

Attorneys for the state said in the filing that they “do not oppose the lifting of the temporary administrative stay and therefore respectfully withdraw their motion for a stay pending appeal.” The White House referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.

Newsom’s office wrote on social media X that it looks forward to the 9th Circuit issuing a legal ruling that will restore the California National Guard to state duty and end “this illegal intimidation tactic.”

The decision could mark a turning point in a contentious legal battle over Trump’s use of the National Guard, which the president says is necessary to stem tensions over immigration enforcement. Justice Department lawyers argued in court that once assembled, the Guard could remain under the president’s command indefinitely and that the courts had no authority to review their deployment.

California officials filed their lawsuits in June after Trump mobilized nearly 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles over Newsom’s objections, saying the deployment was “illegal and unprecedented.” Most of the soldiers were sent home in August. Court records show about 300 California troopers remain under federal control, including 100 who were still serving in Los Angeles earlier this month.

Newsom said in September that Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles amounted to an expensive political stunt that cost taxpayers nearly $120 million. That price tag was calculated from estimates provided by the California National Guard, Newsom’s office said.

In mid-December, a video reviewed by The Times showed dozens of troops under Trump’s command quietly exiting the Roybal Federal Building at midnight following an appeals court order to withdraw. The center has been guarded by armed forces since June.

Earlier this month, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that the president illegally deployed the California National Guard during anti-immigration protests. Breyer ordered that command of the remaining combined forces be returned to Newsom, rejecting the administration’s argument that once combined, Guard units could remain under the president’s control indefinitely. He warned that such a view would increase the constitutional balance between the power of the government and the state.

The Los Angeles case is part of a broader, high-profile legal battle over the president’s authority to deploy the military in American cities. Similar disputes involving the deployment of security guards in Oregon and Illinois are moving forward in the courts, with several judges, including conservative appointees, expressing doubts about the alleged lack of judicial review of such decisions.

Members of Congress have also begun to scrutinize the deployment, raising concerns about civil liberties and the increased use of military forces in public spaces.

The Trump administration’s push to deploy the National Guard in major cities around the US was in response to protests against immigration raids, with the president and his supporters often exaggerating the violent acts of protesters to justify their actions. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier this year that Los Angeles would have “burned to the ground,” if not for the deployment of the National Guard.
But the Guardsmen were only stationed to protect federal buildings in downtown and West LA and rarely entered city streets. Despite the administration’s claims, violent crime and property crime are down about 8% in the city this year, LAPD records show.

While the protests caused extensive property damage in a small part of downtown LA, reports of widespread violence abounded and federal prosecutors struggled to secure charges against protesters accused of attacking federal agents.

Earlier this month, the Times reviewed allegations of attacks on government officials in several cities where Trump has deployed the National Guard or threatened to — including LA, Chicago and Portland, Ore.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta celebrated Tuesday’s impeachment, saying his office “worked around the clock and on weekends to defend the Constitution and end the President’s illegal use of executive power.”

“For six months, the California National Guard has been used by the President who wants to be king as a political party,” said Bonta in a statement. “From the political demonstrations in MacArthur Park to their illegal participation in indiscriminate immigration attacks, the military deployment of National Guard troops on the streets of Los Angeles has left lasting scars on Angeleno communities. There is a reason our founders decided that military and civil affairs must be separated; a reason our military is, by design, disorganized.”