In a move that has stirred national debate, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that former President Donald Trump can continue his deployment of the California National Guard to Los Angeles, despite opposition from state leaders. This decision raises profound questions—not only about executive power and states’ rights—but also about the moral responsibility leaders have when balancing order, justice, and respect for peaceful protest.
According to the Washington Post, the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit allows Trump to maintain a military presence in response to protests against his immigration deportation policies. Two of the judges were appointed by Trump during his first term, and the third by President Joe Biden. The court concluded that the president “likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard,” citing violent episodes during the protests such as “objects [being] thrown at Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicles” and protesters breaching a federal building’s parking garage.
From a Catholic perspective, the deployment of military force on American soil—especially over the objections of a state governor—requires careful reflection. While the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the legitimate role of civil authority in ensuring peace and security (CCC 1900), it also reminds us that authority is only valid when exercised “with a view to the common good.” In a time of widespread civil unrest, how that common good is pursued—through dialogue or force—matters greatly.
California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the deployment, arguing that “thousands of state and local law enforcement officials were more than capable of responding” to the situation without federal troops. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer initially ruled in favor of Newsom, stating that Trump had “exceeded the scope of his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” However, that decision was put on hold by the 9th Circuit, which allowed the troops to remain while the legal battle continues.
Trump responded on social media by calling the decision a “BIG WIN,” suggesting it sets a precedent for using the National Guard in other states “if he determines that local law enforcement is ‘unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,’” according to the Washington Post.
For Catholics, this case also echoes the Church’s teachings on subsidiarity—a principle that insists decisions should be made at the most local level possible, with higher authorities stepping in only when absolutely necessary. Pope Pius XI famously taught that central authority should not interfere with smaller communities unless they are clearly unable to manage the situation themselves. Whether this deployment respects or violates subsidiarity is at the heart of the moral dilemma now unfolding in the courts.
The long-term implications of this legal battle could define the limits of federal power in future administrations. As the protests in Los Angeles have now largely diminished, the question remains whether the continued presence of the National Guard serves a necessary public function—or symbolizes a troubling overreach of executive force.
A broader hearing is scheduled in the lower court to determine under what conditions a president may federalize a state’s National Guard. That decision may eventually reach the Supreme Court and will set a national precedent—not just about law, but about the moral fabric that holds our union together.
In moments of civil unrest, Catholics are called to pray for wisdom among leaders, peace among the people, and justice that reflects the dignity of every person created in God’s image. We must ask not only what is lawful, but what is right.
