President Donald Trump took to social media to declare a significant win after an appeals court allowed him to maintain federal control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The troops were deployed to address anti-ICE protests that had turned violent in recent days.

According to the Daily Mail, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Trump likely acted within his legal authority when federalizing the California National Guard over Governor Gavin Newsom's objections.

The court decision halts a previous ruling from a lower court judge who had determined Trump acted illegally in activating the troops without the governor's permission. This marks the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed a state's National Guard over a governor's opposition.

Court Upholds Presidential Authority In Crisis

The three-judge panel concluded that while presidents don't possess unlimited power to take control of a state's National Guard, the Trump administration presented sufficient evidence to justify its actions. The judges cited specific incidents of violence that had occurred before the troops' deployment.

In their written opinion, the court noted that protestors had "pinned down" federal officers and thrown "concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects" at them. They also mentioned damage to federal buildings that forced at least one to close, as well as an attack on a federal van where windows were smashed.

The panel determined that "the federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant." They also found that even if the federal government failed to properly notify Governor Newsom before federalizing the Guard as required by law, the governor had no authority to veto the president's order.

Trump Claims Victory Over "Incompetent" Newsom

President Trump celebrated the decision with a jubilant post on his Truth Social platform, describing it as a "BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!"

In his statement, Trump harshly criticized the California governor, referring to him as "Gavin Newscum" and describing him as "incompetent and ill prepared." He framed the ruling as having broader implications beyond this specific case.

"This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump wrote. He concluded by congratulating the Ninth Circuit, saying "America is proud of you tonight!"

Newsom Finds Silver Lining In Ruling

Despite the setback, Governor Newsom attempted to highlight a positive aspect of the court's decision in his response to the ruling. He expressed disappointment that Trump would retain control of the Guard but appreciated one element of the judges' reasoning.

"The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," Newsom said in a statement following the decision. "The President is not a king and is not above the law."

Newsom indicated that California would continue its legal challenge, saying, "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens." The governor has consistently maintained that the deployment inflamed tensions and usurped local authority.

Legal Battle With National Implications

The court case could have far-reaching consequences regarding presidential authority to deploy military personnel within the United States. This comes as the Trump administration has directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from several Democratic-run cities.

Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell what he described as "radical left protests" following ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. After the deployment, Trump also declared that masks would no longer be allowed at protests, questioning what protesters "have to hide."

Two of the three judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments, all three suggested that presidents have broad latitude under federal law and that courts should be reluctant to intervene in such matters.