LOS ANGELES — In a landmark legal battle that raises alarm about presidential overreach and states’ rights, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump can maintain control over National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles — despite fierce opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The ruling, handed down by a unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively reverses a lower court decision that declared Trump’s actions illegal. It marks the first time since 1965 that a U.S. president has activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent — and sets a dramatic precedent for future executive authority.

At the heart of the case: Trump’s controversial decision to federalize California’s National Guard in response to protests over aggressive immigration raids. The protests — which broke out following ICE crackdowns in sanctuary cities — were, according to the Trump administration, violent enough to justify military intervention.

“The undisputed facts,” the court wrote, “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’… The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”

The court did acknowledge that the federal government may have failed to properly notify the governor, as required by law — but concluded that Governor Newsom had no legal power to block the president’s order.

Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “BIG WIN.”

“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, echoing the rhetoric he used during the 2020 George Floyd protests.

Newsom, meanwhile, blasted the decision as an endorsement of authoritarianism cloaked in constitutional legality.

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” he said. “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

The political fallout is already spreading. Civil liberties advocates say the ruling opens a dangerous door to future abuses of military power against domestic populations — particularly in politically hostile states.

“The court may have handed future presidents — of any party — a blueprint for overriding state authority under the pretext of civil unrest,” said one constitutional law professor at UCLA. “It’s a chilling prospect.”

The lawsuit initially succeeded at the district court level, where Judge Charles Breyer — brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — ruled that Trump overstepped his authority. In his decision, Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles “fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” which is the legal threshold for such federal action.

But the appellate panel disagreed, siding with Trump’s legal team, which argued that courts have no business second-guessing presidential decisions during emergencies.

The case now continues — but the Guard remains under federal control for the time being.

This ruling lands amid growing political tension as Trump seeks to regain the presidency and as several red-state governors express support for similar deployments in response to what they claim is “urban anarchy” enabled by Democratic leaders.

Critics, however, say the true anarchy is in Washington.

“Trump is testing the limits of our democracy — and the courts are giving him the green light,” said a spokesperson for the ACLU of California.

For the people of Los Angeles, the sight of uniformed soldiers patrolling streets once again — not for natural disasters or wildfires, but for protest control — is an unsettling throwback to darker moments in American history.

“This isn’t about safety,” said local activist Margo Diaz. “This is about silencing dissent. It’s about fear.”

Whether the ruling will stand remains to be seen. The ACLU and California officials vow to continue their legal battle — possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. But the 9th Circuit’s decision has already done what legal experts feared most: it set a precedent.

And in the America of 2025, precedents like these aren’t just law. They’re warnings.