The appeals court on Thursday evening approved the Trump administration’s petition to maintain California National Guard Troops’ deployment amidst Los Angeles protests, provisionally suspending a federal judge’s directive issued earlier that day. The initial ruling had instructed President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the troops back to California Governor Gavin Newsom.US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump illegally dispatched the troops, stating that the president had overstepped his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Breyer ordered the federal government to give up control to the governor but stayed his order until noon Friday. This led the government to quickly appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which granted a stay. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.Asked to comment, the governor’s office referred to Newsom’s previous remarks that he is “confident in the rule of law.”This legal dispute arose from a lawsuit California filed earlier this week against Trump, defence secretary Pete Hegseth, and the defence department. The state seeks to limit the role of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, allowing them only to protect federal facilities and personnel. It asked for a temporary order limiting military actions and questioned the president’s rights to deploy troops in California without the governor’s input or consent.The Trump administration has deployed 4,100 National Guard members and Marines to respond to protests, with 2,100 Guard members stationed in the LA area. According to US Northern Command, the forces are part of Task Force 51, tasked with protecting federal property and functions.Newsom, a Democrat and frequent critic of Trump, emphasised that his request was not to stop the military’s mission but to obtain “narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalised National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities.”In court, the Trump administration labeled California’s request “legally meritless,” arguing it would compromise the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and disrupt federal operations.In his 36-page ruling, Breyer criticised the administration’s approach, stating that “the continued unlawful militarisation” of Los Angeles risked escalating tensions and violence. He acknowledged that courts generally defer to presidents on national security and foreign policy but affirmed that domestic military deployments are subject to judicial oversight.Breyer rejected the administration’s characterisation of the demonstrations as a rebellion, noting that while some protesters were violent, the events did not amount to “a violent, armed, organised, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”The judge also criticised the administration’s claim that local and state leaders had lost control, asserting that the federal government could not override a state’s police power due to dissatisfaction with enforcement speed or strategy. In a post-ruling news conference, Newsom reverberated Breyer’s sentiment, stating, “There’s no invasion. There’s no rebellion. It’s absurd.” He framed the issue as a “test of democracy,” saying the ruling confirmed Trump is not above constitutional limits. During the hearing, Judge Breyer, a former Watergate prosecutor and brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, read from Article II of the US Constitution, underscoring executive limits. “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said. “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.” Some protests in Los Angeles following recent immigration raids have seen clashes, looting, and arson, though much of the city has remained unaffected. The administration depicted the city as overwhelmed, while state and local officials maintained they were capable of managing the situation and accused the federal government of exacerbating unrest. Judge Breyer scheduled another hearing for June 20 and ordered the federal government to present arguments against a preliminary injunction.