Ninth Circuit upholds block on California Guard federalization and refuses to let the case fade

The injunction stands

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction against the federalization of the California National Guard, in a decision that treats the president's power in this area as reviewable rather than unreviewable. The court held that presidential authority to federalize the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. section 12406 is subject to judicial review, and found that the president failed to meet the two threshold showings required by section 12406(3) as established in Trump v. Illinois. Those two holdings together are the core of the case: courts can look, and on this record the government did not clear the statute's first hurdles. m:…2983

The court went further on the facts the government offered. It found that the president's determination that conditions in Los Angeles constituted a rebellion under section 12406(2) was not a colorable assessment, and that the federalization order was ultra vires and violated the constitutional separation of powers. The Tenth Amendment claim was derivative of the section 12406 claim and likely to succeed, and the balance of equities and public interest favor the plaintiffs. California's governor's office, reporting the same decision, says the court ruled in favor of Governor Newsom and the State of California, held that the federalization and deployment was an abuse of authority, and rejected the assertion that there was a rebellion in Los Angeles warranting federalization. The governor's office also notes that Newsom is commander-in-chief of the California National Guard under the California Constitution, and that Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit in June 2025. m:…2983 m:…7019

Why the case does not go away

The second Ninth Circuit decision in this set is procedural, but it is the one that keeps the first decision from becoming history. The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal in Case No. 25-3727, while granting the motion to dismiss the appeal in Case No. 25-7781. The distinction turns on mootness. The appeal of the initial-federalization injunction is not moot because the government has promised to repeat the conduct, and a defendant's compliance with an injunction does not moot an appeal. The court said it denied dismissal to prevent strategic manipulation of precedent, and that it has discretion under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2) to deny a motion to dismiss an appeal. In plain terms, the government cannot end the case by obeying the injunction for now and reserving the right to do the same thing again. m:…6561

The court was also careful about what it was not deciding. It found that the appeal of the federalization-extension injunction lacks practical significance because the initial injunction was affirmed, which explains the dismissal in the second case number. Judge Bennett dissented, arguing both appeals should have been dismissed. The dissent matters for journalists covering the next round: the majority and the dissent disagree not about whether the Guard can be federalized in the abstract, but about whether courts should keep deciding the question when the immediate order is no longer in force. The majority's answer, that a promise to repeat the conduct keeps the case live, is now part of the precedent the next federalization attempt will have to reckon with. m:…6561

What to watch next

For reporters, the practical consequence is that the legal standard is now written down in two places: the merits holding that section 12406 authority is reviewable and that the rebellion claim here was not colorable, and the procedural holding that compliance plus a promise to repeat does not moot the appeal. Any future federalization order will be measured against the two threshold showings the court says the government failed here, and any attempt to moot a challenge by standing down temporarily will face the strategic-manipulation reasoning. The open question is not whether courts can review these orders; the Ninth Circuit says they can. It is whether a future order can present a factual record that clears the threshold showings this record did not. That is a question about evidence from the next deployment, not about abstract presidential power, and it will be litigated on facts that do not yet exist. m:…2983 m:…6561