A U.S. appeals court on Thursday allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of the National Guard troops he sent to Los Angeles. He had deployed them in response to protests following immigration raids.

Previously, a lower court ruled that Trump acted illegally by sending the troops without California Governor Gavin Newsom’s permission. However, the appeals court has now put that ruling on hold.

Notably, this marks the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed a state’s National Guard without the governor’s approval.

Court Rules Trump Likely Acted Within the Law

A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that Trump likely had the legal right to federalize the Guard.

According to the judges, while presidents cannot take control of state troops without limits, the Trump administration provided enough justification in this case.

In fact, the court cited specific violence at the protests. “The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers,” the court said.

Moreover, they added, “Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows.”

Therefore, the court concluded, “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”

Governor Had No Veto Power, Court Says

Although the federal government may not have notified Governor Newsom in advance, the court stated that he had no power to stop the president’s order.

So far, neither the governor’s office nor the White House has responded to requests for comment.

Decision Could Influence Presidential Powers

Importantly, this case may affect how future presidents use troops inside the U.S. Trump had previously ordered federal agents to increase deportations in cities led by Democrats.

On one hand, Trump said the troops were needed to restore peace. On the other hand, Governor Newsom argued that the move undermined local authority and made things worse.

Since then, the protests have eased, but the legal case is far from over.

Judges Suggest Courts Should Avoid Interference

Interestingly, two of the judges on the panel were appointed by Trump. During oral arguments, all three judges appeared to support broad presidential powers under the law in question. They also said courts should rarely interfere in such decisions.

Case Began with Newsom’s Lawsuit

Originally, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s actions. A federal judge in San Francisco, Charles Breyer, ruled in Newsom’s favor.

Breyer wrote, “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” He said presidents can only federalize the Guard during times of “rebellion or danger of rebellion.”

Nonetheless, Trump’s lawyers argued that the courts should not challenge a president’s national security decision. They quickly appealed the ruling and got a temporary stay.

As a result, the California National Guard will remain under federal command while the lawsuit moves forward.