Fact Check: "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California on June 11, 2025."
What We Know
On June 11, 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on a ruling from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, which had ordered President Donald Trump to return control of California's National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision came shortly after Judge Breyer deemed the deployment of the National Guard troops illegal, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment and exceeding Trump's statutory authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code (AP News, Washington Post). The appeals court indicated that it would hold a hearing on the matter shortly after the temporary stay was issued (Reuters).
Judge Breyer's ruling was significant as it asserted that the deployment did not constitute a rebellion, a key criterion for federalizing the National Guard under Title 10 (New York Times). The appeals court's decision effectively maintained the status quo until further review, allowing Trump to retain control of the National Guard troops for the time being (BBC).
Analysis
The claim that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a federal judge's order is accurate. The appeals court's ruling directly countered Judge Breyer's order, which had mandated the return of the National Guard to state control. The legal basis for the appeals court's intervention was not detailed in the immediate ruling, but it is common for appellate courts to issue stays to prevent changes in status while they review cases (PBS, NBC News).
The sources reporting on this event are credible, including major news organizations such as the Associated Press, Washington Post, and Reuters, which are known for their journalistic standards and fact-checking processes. They provide a balanced view of the legal arguments presented by both the Trump administration and the state of California, highlighting the ongoing tensions regarding the deployment of military forces in response to civil unrest (CNN).
The context of this legal battle is rooted in broader issues of state versus federal authority, particularly regarding the deployment of the National Guard. The judge's ruling emphasized the importance of state control over local law enforcement and the implications of federal military presence in civilian matters. This aspect adds depth to the analysis, as it reflects ongoing debates about the appropriate use of military force in domestic situations.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim is True. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did indeed temporarily block a federal judge's order directing President Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California. This ruling illustrates the complexities of legal authority concerning the deployment of military forces and the ongoing conflict between state and federal powers.
Sources
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of ...
- Trump can keep California National Guard deployed for ...
- Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. ...
- Trump's Use of National Guard in Limbo After Court Rulings
- Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National ...
- Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return ... - PBS
- Trump administration can keep control of California National Guard ...
- Appeals court temporarily pauses ruling requiring Trump to return control of ...
