Case: Newsom v. Trump
3:25-cv-04870 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: June 9, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the federal deployment of the California National Guard to protect federal property and immigration officials from protesters in Los Angeles and the surrounding area.
On June 9, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in the Los Angeles area. On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers carried out multiple enforcement actions in and around Los Angeles, arresting around 44 people and detaining 70–80 more. The same day as the arrests, crowds gathered at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles to protest the Trump Administration and its immigration agenda. The complaint alleged that, while some protesters engaged in violence against property and law enforcement, the majority were peaceful. Protests continued on June 7 and June 8.
The complaint alleged that Los Angeles police and sheriff's deputies had responded to the protests and dispersed crowds at various locations over the three days. However, on the evening of June 7, despite a social-media message from Governor Newsom stating that federalization was unnecessary, President Trump issued a memorandum that said because of "numerous incidents of violence and disorder" that had taken place in response to ICE actions, he was calling into service members of the National Guard. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the President may call out the National Guard if one of three conditions is met: (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
Citing this statute, President Trump authorized the Secretary of Defense to (1) "coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority,” (2) call out up to 2,000 National Guard personnel for up to 60 days, and (3) use them to perform protective activities for the protection of federal personnel and property.
That same evening, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, sent a memorandum to the Adjutant General of California, who commands the California National Guard under the Governor. Relying on President Trump's memo and without the consent of the Governor, Secretary Hegseth called into service 2,000 members of the California National Guard for 60 days of service. He transferred control of the Guard members to the commander of U.S. Northern Command, and the Guard began to arrive in Los Angeles on June 8. On June 9, Secretary Hegseth called another 2,000 Guard members into federal service, again without the California Governor's consent.
Represented by the State's Attorney General, plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of Defense. Plaintiffs alleged that the President's and the agency's actions were ultra vires and exceeded the scope of their authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and the Posse Comitatus Act, that defendants violated the Tenth Amendment and Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, and that the agency's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, plaintiffs asked the court to declare President Trump's memo and both of Secretary Hegseth's orders relying on it unlawful, to enjoin the Department of Defense from deploying the National Guard, and to award court costs.
The case was assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer. On June 10, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asking the court to maintain the status quo "by temporarily enjoining defendants from ordering or deploying the active-duty members of the military and federalized National Guard soldiers to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities beyond the immediate vicinity of federal buildings or other federal real property." The court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for June 12.
The district court issued a TRO ordering the return of control of the California National Guard to the State. The court held the case justiciable and concluded that the statutory prerequisites for federalization under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were not met: it found no rebellion, rejected the government's argument that partial obstacles or generalized risk satisfied the statute's requirement that the President be "unable" to execute the laws, and held that the federalization orders failed to comply with § 12406's requirement that they issue through the Governor. The court also concluded that the unlawful federalization likely violated the Tenth Amendment by interfering with the State’s police powers, but stayed its order briefly to allow an appeal. 2025 WL 1663345
The government appealed on June 12, 2025 (No. 25-3727), and the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay that evening. While agreeing that the case was judicially reviewable, the Court of Appeals held that review under § 12406 is highly deferential and that the government was likely to prevail, finding that the statute does not require complete incapacity to execute the laws and that sufficient interference with federal operations supported the President's determination. The court also held that the statute’s procedural requirement was likely satisfied because the federalization order was transmitted through the state adjutant general acting in the Governor’s name, and it set an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. 2025 WL 1712930
On September 2, 2025, the district court held that defendants had violated the Posse Comitatus Act and entered injunctive relief, finding that federalized National Guard units engaged in prohibited law enforcement activities in Los Angeles pursuant to a top-down directive and that § 12406 did not create an exception to the Act. The court enjoined further use of the National Guard to execute domestic law, stayed the injunction until September 12, and entered judgment for plaintiffs on the Posse Comitatus Act claims. 2025 WL 2501619.
Also on September 2, plaintiffs moved to enjoin an August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of 300 Guard members. The government appealed (No. 25-5553), and on September 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to preserve the status quo pending further review. 2025 WL 2501619.
On September 9, 2025, the district court stayed all proceedings related to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court concluded that, given the fragmented procedural posture of the case and the Ninth Circuit's pending review of closely related issues, it was uncertain whether jurisdiction over the motion lay with the district court or the court of appeals.
On October 22, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, leaving in place the panel’s June 19, 2025 stay order allowing continued federalization of the California National Guard pending appeal. The court’s decision reflects the view that presidential determinations under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 are subject to highly deferential judicial review and that, at least at the stay stage, the President need not be completely unable to enforce federal law before invoking the statute.
On October 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied as unnecessary plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ challenge to Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court explained that although an interlocutory appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over aspects of a case involved in the appeal, it does not bar the district court from proceeding on distinct issues not before the appellate court.
After the Ninth Circuit clarified that the district court retained jurisdiction over challenges to later federalization orders, Judge Charles Breyer lifted the stay on November 4, 2025, and set an expedited briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Secretary Hegseth’s August 5, 2025 order extending the federalization of approximately 300 California National Guard members. The court emphasized that the renewed motion should account for post-September developments, including the transfer of federalized California Guard members to Oregon and Illinois.
Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion on November 13, 2025, arguing that continued federalization and deployment of the National Guard in and around Los Angeles lacked any lawful basis under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. They contended that even if isolated violence in June justified the initial deployment, that exigency had long since dissipated, and § 12406 does not authorize indefinite or geographically untethered military deployments based on speculative future risk. Plaintiffs further argued that the statute requires a present inability to execute the laws using regular forces, not merely a residual risk of interference, and that continued federalization therefore violates both § 12406 and the Tenth Amendment.
On December 10, 2025, Judge Breyer granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Trump Administration’s continued federalization of California National Guard troops under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The court held that both the August 5 and October 16, 2025 federalization orders were judicially reviewable and likely unlawful because the statutory preconditions for federalization were no longer met. Specifically, the court found no colorable basis to conclude that the President was presently “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” emphasizing that the June protests had long subsided, ICE operations were proceeding without meaningful interference, and most Guard members had already been withdrawn without incident. The court rejected the government’s argument that once an initial federalization is valid, all subsequent extensions are unreviewable, warning that such a theory would permit indefinite federal control of state militias and undermine federalism and separation-of-powers principles. Applying even the Ninth Circuit’s highly deferential standard, the court concluded that the continued deployment rested on speculative future risks rather than a present exigency and therefore exceeded the President’s delegated authority under § 12406. Accordingly, the court ordered the return of control of the remaining federalized California National Guard members to the Governor and enjoined further deployments absent a new, legally sufficient justification. 2025 WL 3533818.
The government filed a notice of appeal on December 11, 2025 (No. 25-7781), and moved for an emergency stay pending appeal. On December 12, 2025, a Ninth Circuit motions panel granted an administrative stay in part, temporarily staying only the portion of the district court’s order directing the return of control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom, while leaving the remainder of the injunction in effect. The panel emphasized that the administrative stay was intended solely to preserve the status quo and did not reflect any view on the merits.
On December 17, 2025, at the district court, Judge Breyer entered a stipulated order extending the briefing schedule on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The court ordered plaintiffs to file their opposition by January 20, 2026, and defendants to file their reply by February 3, 2026.
On December 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit ordered the government to file a supplemental brief addressing whether the partial administrative stay should be lifted in light of Trump v. Illinois, and set an expedited supplemental briefing schedule.
On December 30, 2025, the government filed a supplemental brief stating that it did not oppose lifting the partial administrative stay and withdrew its motion for a stay pending appeal.
On December 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit vacated the administrative stay in full, leaving the district court’s December 10 preliminary injunction fully operative and requiring the return of remaining California National Guard members to state control. That same day, President Trump publicly announced that he would abandon efforts to deploy National Guard troops over the objections of state officials in California, Illinois, and Oregon, signaling a broader retreat from contested federalization efforts following adverse court rulings.
On January 12, the parties filed in the district court a stipulated motion to stay deadlines for the briefing on the motion to dismiss in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Illinois, pending further guidance from the appellate court in Newsom v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump. Judge Breyer granted the motion on January 16. Also on January 12, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to hold appeal No. 25-5553 in abeyance pending resolution of the other two appeals.
On January 23, 2026, defendants filed motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals 25-3727 and 25-7781. Plaintiffs opposed the motions because the appeals had already been fully briefed and dismissal would prevent the Ninth Circuit from issuing an opinion applying Trump v. Illinois, depriving lower courts of guidance on recurring issues. In the alternative, plaintiffs requested that if the Ninth Circuit chose to dismiss the case, its prior stay order be vacated due to its conflict with the ruling in Illinois.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Vedant Vamshidhar (7/9/2026)
Jeremiah Price (6/25/2025)
Clearinghouse (1/16/2026)
Michael Vandergriff (1/2/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/parties/newsom-v-trump/
Attorney, Nicholas David
Attorney, Mr. Andrew
Akerman, Mr. Martin
Attorney, Simon Christopher
Attorney, Shilpi Agarwal,
Benbrook, Bradley A. (California)
Bentrott, Jane Petersen (California)
Brown, Diamond J. (California)
Carrillo, David A. (California)
Carter, Margaret Louise (California)
Craig, Matthew J. (California)
Dundas, Michael Joseph (California)
Duvernay, Stephen Michael (California)
Eisen, Norman Larry (California)
Heintz, Tera Marie (California)
Jenkins, Mack Eric (California)
Kolb, Joshua Gabriel (California)
Matevosyan, Arman (California)
Paradis, Michel Paradis (California)
Stracener, Brandon V. (California)
Sugerman, Jeremy Joseph (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/
Last updated Oct. 31, 2026, 5:07 a.m.
Docket for: Newsom v. Trump
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 9, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State and Governor of California.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Defense
United States
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:25-cv-04870
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03727
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-05553
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-07781
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of Newsom v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46678/ (last updated 1/2/2026).