Context:

A federal appeals court appeared inclined to allow President Trump to retain control of California's National Guard to protect immigration enforcement agents and manage protests in Los Angeles, despite Governor Gavin Newsom's objections. A district court had previously ruled Trump's use of the National Guard illegal, but the Trump administration appealed, leading to a temporary stay by the Ninth Circuit. The judges, two appointed by Trump and one by Biden, expressed skepticism about California's argument against Trump's authority and the necessity of federal intervention. The protests in Los Angeles, sparked by immigration raids, saw local authorities argue they could manage unrest without federal intervention, while Trump cited the need for protection of federal facilities. The case could set significant precedents regarding presidential powers to deploy military forces domestically, potentially requiring Supreme Court intervention for a final decision.

Dive Deeper:

• A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit is evaluating whether President Trump can continue directing the National Guard in California, despite a district court ruling that deemed the action illegal.

• The panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, who showed skepticism about California's claim that Trump's directive bypassed the governor, as required by law.

• Protests in Los Angeles, which were triggered by ICE raids, have led to debates over the necessity of federal intervention, with local authorities insisting that they can manage the situation without federal troops.

• The Trump administration argues that the deployment is necessary for the protection of federal agents and facilities, but critics warn it sets a dangerous precedent for presidential overreach in domestic matters.

• The case highlights the ongoing tension between state and federal authority, with potential implications for how military forces can be used on domestic soil, possibly necessitating a Supreme Court decision.

• Governor Newsom and local officials argue that the military's presence is inflammatory and unnecessary, potentially undermining the perceived neutrality and integrity of the military.

• The Ninth Circuit's decision, which currently maintains a stay on the district court's ruling, could have lasting impacts on the balance of power between state and federal governments in matters of domestic security.