Crisis and Control: Limits on Federal Military Action Without State Consent

On June 20, 2025, a California appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump can continue deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to ongoing protests. This is the second court decision regarding the legality of President Trump’s deployment, with the first siding with California officials who opposed it. The Los Angeles protests began in response to federal immigration raids conducted by the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a city with a large immigrant population, protesters have called for the protection of immigrant communities. However, on June 7, local law enforcement began arresting protesters, escalating tensions. In response, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of two-thousand National Guard members to protect federal officers involved in the immigration raids and to quell protest attempts. Ultimately, President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent shows an unprecedented stretch of executive power under the Insurrection Act because it violates established principles of state sovereignty and falls outside the legal bounds of Supreme Court precedent.

California officials were the first to criticize President Trump’s deployment of troops, as the decision was made despite their objections and statements that law enforcement officials were taking control of the situation. The state of California sued the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment was an abuse of power and violates the Tenth Amendment, which authorizes states all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. 

The central legal issue lies in whether the president can deploy the National Guard in a state without that state’s consent. President Trump justified his action by using the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the federal government to deploy troops when “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” prevents the execution of the law and the state is “unable or unwilling” to address it. Likewise, President Trump labeled the protesters as “insurrectionists” and framed his deployment to “liberate” the city. 

Using the Insurrection Act in this context is surprising. While the law has been used numerous times throughout American history, it usually follows requests made by state governments or in response to extraordinary circumstances. The last time it was used was in 1992, when California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal military assistance during the Los Angeles riots. Moreover, the only time it was used without the governor’s consent was in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the National Guard to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. However, this march was two weeks after the violent disruption of the “Bloody Sunday” march and after segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace stated that the state would refuse to ensure the safety and welfare of the activists.

If Trump’s use of the Act is justified, it would be the first time it is used to override a state’s authority to protect federal law information. In this case, it would not be to restore order from mass unrest, but to only suppress the protests. A court decision in favor of Trump could stretch the legal definition of an “insurrection,” and thus challenge congressional limits on executive power. Normally, an insurrection describes a violent dissent against the government that is often organized and large-scale – but given reports that the LA protests were largely peaceful, considering them as insurrectionary activity sets a dangerous precedent. Because President Trump disagreed with the politics of the protests, future administrations might be emboldened to label any protest or form of political speech they oppose as an insurrection. This drastic change in meaning might further erode the public’s right to petition the government, taken together with the President’s track record of suppressing speech. 

Analyzing how the Supreme Court has ruled in similar executive authority cases may provide insight into how President Trump’s decision could be seen as a stretch of presidential power. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court rejected President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during a national emergency without congressional authorization. In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson developed a three-tiered framework for analyzing when presidential power has the greatest authority and when it is most restricted, with its “lowest ebb” occurring when the president acts against congressional or state authority. President Trump’s decision, made without the California governor’s consent, falls into this third category. At this lowest ebb, the president acts against both Congress and the states, meaning they can only use the powers directly given to them by the Constitution. In other words, the president can only rely on their independent constitutional powers (as listed in Article II), making it much harder to justify their actions in court, as judges often rule against presidents who act without legislative or state support.

Additionally, President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles protests without the governor’s consent goes beyond Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990)’s legal bounds and ignores the core constitutional principle of state sovereignty. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to deploy the National Guard for training abroad, even without the consent of state governors. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, supported the decision by explaining that Guard members have dual enlistment, meaning that they serve both their state as well as federal military. Yet, the Court deliberately distinguished between federal military missions and domestic law enforcement, emphasizing states’ constitutional role in internal affairs. Thus, the president does not have blanket authority to use the National Guard within a state for law enforcement without the governor’s consent. Applying Perpich’s precedent, it becomes clear that if the law enforcement in California were taking control of protests, then President Trump does not have the authority to use the National Guard for California’s internal affairs.

Ultimately, if courts fail to take decisive action against President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, future presidents might invoke the Insurrection Act not out of necessity, but as a political tool to appease their supporters. Referring to the LA protests, Kyle Longley, a professor of history, war and diplomacy at Chapman University explains, “[t]his is trying to provoke a response…play to the base of Trump, who have tried to portray cities as cesspools of discontent.” An unthoughtful invocation of the Insurrection Act may also allow the executive branch to suppress dissent and silence protests that challenge its authority. Courts must recognize the foundational principle of state sovereignty to prevent these harmful outcomes. 

Edited by Aliyyah Hamid and Lukas Roybal