第九巡回法院裁定特朗普联邦化加州国民警卫队违法：纽森称裁决捍卫法治
Sacramento——加州州长办公室10月23日发布声明称，美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院当天就加州诉特朗普总统联邦化加州国民警卫队一案作出裁决，判州长纽森与加州胜诉。州长办公室称，这项裁决认定特朗普去年将加州国民警卫队联邦化并部署到洛杉矶（Los Angeles）属滥用职权、构成对宪法三权分立的违反，并为同类案件创设了重要的新法律先例。
这起诉讼由加州总检察长 Rob Bonta 代表州长与加州提起。纽森在声明中说：「今天对法治、捍卫宪法与守护民主至关重要。又一家法院全面驳回了特朗普对本州国民警卫队的非法、威权式接管。加州奋起反击这一潜在的夺权行为，由此创设了重要的法律先例，不仅保护加州人，也保护全体美国人。加州将继续站在抵御特朗普威权主义的第一线。」
加州总检察长 Rob Bonta 在同一声明中说：「法院再次驳回了特朗普政府为其政治议程规避法律的企图。在洛杉矶部署国民警卫队毫无道理，是联邦越权的明显例证，绝不能容忍。当总统践踏宪法与加州人的权利时，我们将奋起追究其责任，而且我们会赢。」
州长办公室称，这项裁决承接了美国最高法院去年12月的先例：最高法院当时认定特朗普联邦化伊利诺伊州国民警卫队违法。州长办公室称，最高法院当时的意见驳回了总统提出的一项联邦化理由；第九巡回法院今天的裁决进一步驳回了总统所称洛杉矶存在「叛乱」的主张，法院认定该主张并非在「诚实判断范围」内可成立的评估。州长办公室称，驳回「叛乱」说法对下个月的选举是一重关键保障。
案件背景方面，州长办公室称，2025年6月，在特朗普呼吁逮捕州长纽森之后，总检察长 Rob Bonta 代表纽森起诉特朗普政府，要求结束对一支加州国民警卫队部队的非法接管；州长办公室称，这次接管没有必要，并使洛杉矶地区的混乱与暴力升级。
总检察长办公室还介绍了本案此前的两项裁决：2025 年 8 月，联邦地区法院经三天庭审后，就国民警卫队在洛杉矶从事民事执法涉及的《治安法》（Posse Comitatus Act）问题发布永久禁令，禁止联邦政府今后再从事相同或类似行为；该命令目前因第九巡回法院搁置联邦政府就此提出的上诉而暂时中止执行。2025 年 10 月，加州方面取得最终裁决，阻止联邦政府将加州国民警卫队士兵跨州部署至俄勒冈州 Portland，裁决认定该跨州部署逾越联邦政府权限、违反宪法第十修正案。
州长办公室称，依据加州宪法，州长纽森是加州国民警卫队的总司令。诉讼主张，联邦政府越过法律权限、绕过州长批准接管该部队，当时联邦干预并无必要，也不符合联邦化的必要条件；洛杉矶当时的动荡远未达到超出地方与州当局控制能力的「叛乱」程度，与近年其他由地方当局自行平息、没有军事干预的类似情形在性质上并无不同。
在法律理由方面，第九巡回法院以 2 比 1 作出判决，判决由法官 Jennifer Sung 撰写，法官 Eric D. Miller 加入多数意见并另附协同意见，法官 Mark J. Bennett 提出异议。多数意见认定，洛杉矶当时的抗议活动不构成《美国法典》第 10 编第 12406 条所指的「叛乱或叛乱危险」，该条第（2）项不能为总统的联邦化命令提供授权；多数意见同时将该条第（3）项中的「常规部队」解释为正规军，认定联邦政府未能证明其无法依靠正规军执行法律。此案为 Newsom v. Trump，案号 25-3727。案件经过方面，联邦地方法院法官 Charles Breyer 此前认定联邦化违法并下令归还指挥权，第九巡回法院一度暂缓执行该命令；其后约 700 名海军陆战队队员也被派往洛杉矶地区，2025 年 12 月特朗普宣布撤回在洛杉矶等城市部署的国民警卫队。此次判决是本案的最终实体裁决。
同日，合议庭还驳回了特朗普政府撤回上诉的请求。总检察长办公室称，政府方面此前申请撤回就临时限制令提出的上诉；据法院同日发布的命令，《联邦上诉程序规则》第 42(b) 条规定，上诉「可以」依上诉一方的请求撤销、并非「必须」撤销，合议庭据此拒绝放行，理由包括：本案上诉尚未失去实际意义、实体裁决仍可防止类似情形下再度联邦化，法院与双方已为本案投入大量资源，且放行撤回将助长以撤诉操纵先例形成的策略行为。
特朗普政府方面截至发稿未见就此裁决发表公开声明；据公开报道，白宫未即时回应媒体的置评请求。
来源：GSM·美国
Ninth Circuit Rules Trump's Federalization of California National Guard Unlawful, Newsom Hails Ruling
Sacramento — The Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom said on October 23 that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that day in favor of Governor Newsom and the State of California in the state's lawsuit against President Trump over his federalization and deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles last year. The Governor's Office said the court held the federalization was an abuse of the President's authority and a "violation of the constitutional separation of powers," creating an essential new legal precedent.
The lawsuit was filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of the Governor and the state. "Today is a crucial day for the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and defending democracy. Yet another court has issued a complete rejection of Donald Trump's illegal, authoritarian takeover of our state's National Guard. California fought back against this potential power grab, and in doing so created essential legal precedent that not only protects Californians but all Americans. California continues to stand as a first line of defense against Donald Trump's authoritarianism," Governor Newsom said.
"Once again, the courts have rejected the Trump Administration's attempts to circumvent the law for his own political agenda," Attorney General Bonta said in the same statement. "Deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles with no rhyme or reason was a clear example of federal overreach, and it will not be tolerated. When the President tramples on the Constitution and the rights of Californians, we'll fight to hold him accountable — and we will win."
The Governor's Office said the decision builds on precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court last December, which held that President Trump's federalization of the Illinois National Guard was illegal. It said the Supreme Court's opinion rejected one argument the President had raised for federalization, while the Ninth Circuit's decision in California's case also rejected the President's assertion that there was a "rebellion" in Los Angeles warranting federalization, which the court held was not "a colorable assessment within a 'range of honest judgment.'" The Governor's Office called the rejection of the "rebellion" claim a critical safeguard ahead of next month's elections.
On the background of the case, the Governor's Office said that in June 2025, following President Trump's call to arrest Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta filed the lawsuit to end the takeover of a California National Guard unit, which it said needlessly escalated chaos and violence in the Los Angeles region.
The Attorney General's Office also recounted two earlier rulings in the litigation. In August 2025, after a three-day trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction over the use of Guard troops for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles under the Posse Comitatus Act, barring the federal government from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future; that order is temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit holds the federal government's appeal in abeyance. In October 2025, California secured a final ruling blocking the cross-state deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, which held that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.
The Governor's Office said that under the California Constitution, Governor Newsom is the Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard. The lawsuit argued that the federal government overstepped its legal authority and bypassed the Governor's approval to take over the unit, in a situation where federal intervention was not needed and did not meet the criteria for federalization. It said the unrest in Los Angeles was nowhere close to rising to the level of a "rebellion" beyond the capacity of local and state authorities to control, nor different in kind from other similar situations in recent years brought under control by local authorities with no need for military intervention.
In its legal reasoning, the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in an opinion by Judge Jennifer Sung, joined by Judge Eric D. Miller, who also filed a concurrence; Judge Mark J. Bennett dissented. The majority held that the Los Angeles protests were not a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2), so that provision did not authorize the federalization order, and it read "regular forces" in § 12406(3) to mean the regular U.S. military, finding the government had not shown it was unable to execute the laws with those forces. The case is Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727. Earlier in the case, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer held the federalization illegal and ordered control returned to the governor, an order the Ninth Circuit initially stayed; about 700 Marines were also sent to the Los Angeles area, and in December 2025 President Trump announced the withdrawal of Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles and other cities. The ruling is the final merits decision in the case.
In a separate order the same day, the panel also denied the Trump Administration's motion to withdraw its appeal of the temporary restraining order. According to the court's order, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) provides that an appeal "may" be dismissed on the appellant's motion, so dismissal is not mandatory, and the panel exercised its discretion to deny the motion, reasoning that the appeal was not moot because a merits decision could still prevent federalization under similar circumstances in the future, that the court and the parties had already invested substantial time in the case, and that allowing withdrawal would encourage strategic manipulation of precedent.
The Trump Administration had issued no public statement on the ruling as of publication; according to published reports, the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Source: GSM, United States
来源：GSM·美国（原文链接）
图片来源：图：加州州长纽森在 Sacramento 发表讲话。加州州长办公室2026年10月23日随本案声明发布的官方图片。 / California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking in Sacramento. Official image released by the Office of the Governor of California on October 23, 2026, with its statement on this ruling.
