The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to allow the Trump administration to maintain control of troops in Los Angeles while a legal challenge from California proceeds in federal court. The court affirmed that the president has considerable,though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military within the United States.

Judge Mark J.Bennett of Honolulu, a trump appointee, stated that the court disagreed with the argument that the President’s decision to federalize the California National Guard was entirely beyond judicial review. However, the court also found that long-standing precedent requires a highly deferential review of such decisions.

California officials have pledged to continue their legal challenge in federal court.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta responded to the ruling by saying, “This case is far from over. While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom stated, “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S.military soldiers against citizens.”

Legal experts have indicated that this decision was not unexpected, especially given the shift in the 9th Circuit’s composition since the beginning of trump’s first term.

eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge, emphasized the importance of understanding the extent of power Congress has granted the president through these statutes.

Merriam added that judges have historically given notable deference to the president in national security matters, including the use of the military, noting that this level of deference is unparalleled in other areas of law.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the appellate panel questioned both sides, seemingly rejecting the federal government’s argument that the courts have no right to review the president’s actions, while also challenging California’s assertion that Trump exceeded his authority by sending troops to L.A. to suppress a “rebellion against the authority of the United states.”

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, observed that all three judges appeared skeptical of the most extreme arguments presented by each party.

Goitein added, “I was impressed with the questions. I think they were fair questions, I think they were hard questions. I think the judges were wrestling with the right issues.”

The ruling effectively returns the matter to U.S. District Judge Charles R.Breyer.

unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order on June 12 would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely sidestepped the question of whether the situation in Los Angeles constituted a “rebellion.”

Rather, the court focused its ruling on the limitations of presidential power.

“This case is far from over…we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.”

Bennett’s opinion directly countered the argument made by Assistant Atty.Gen. Brett Shumate during Tuesday’s hearing, which claimed that the decision to federalize National Guard troops was “unreviewable.”

The judge wrote, “Defendants argue that this language precludes review, [b]ut Supreme Court precedent does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the president could federalize the National guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”

he also quoted extensively from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling vs. Constantin, stating that “[t]he nature of the [president’s] power also necessarily implies that ther is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.”

Shumate reportedly told the judge he was unfamiliar with the case when Bennett questioned him about it during the hearing.

Goitein commented, “That is a key case in that line of cases, and the fact he was not aware of it is extraordinary.”

Merriam concurred, to a degree.

The scholar said, “That’s a nightmare we have in law school – its a nightmare I’ve had as an appellate judge.”

However, Merriam added, “it’s actually a good thing that the attorney representing the U.S. was not planning to talk about martial law in front of the 9th Circuit.”

The ruling did not address the question of whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using the military for civilian law enforcement, an allegation made by California in its original complaint but which Breyer had previously set aside.

Goitein explained that “The Posse Comitatus Act claim has not been resolved as it was essentially not ripe last Thursday, when troops had just arrived. It is ripe now.”

She added, “Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a ruling from the district court next week that could limit what troops can do on the ground.”

In the meantime, residents of Los Angeles will continue to see an increased presence of federal troops.

Merriam stated, “[Congress] didn’t limit rebellion to specific types of facts. As much as [Angelenos] might say,’This is crazy! There’s not a rebellion going on in L.A. right now,’ this is where we are with the law.”