“Ninth Circuit Ruling: Newsom Denied Veto Power Over trump‘s Deployment Requests”
Ninth Circuit ruling, California Governor authority, Trump deployment order
—————–

In a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit, it was determined that California Governor Gavin Newsom does not have the authority to veto deployment requests made by President Trump. This decision comes after Newsom and other Democratic politicians argued that Trump’s order for deployment was unlawful and that Newsom had the power to reject it. However, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling now clarifies that Newsom cannot obstruct deployment requests from the federal government.

This ruling has sparked controversy and debate among political circles, with some supporting the Ninth Circuit’s decision as a necessary clarification of constitutional powers, while others view it as an infringement on state sovereignty. Governor Newsom and his supporters have expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that it undermines the state’s ability to make decisions regarding its own National Guard deployments.

The conflict between Newsom and Trump over deployment requests began when Trump issued an order for the deployment of California’s National Guard troops to assist with border security. Newsom pushed back against this order, arguing that it was politically motivated and unnecessary. He also raised concerns about the potential misuse of National Guard troops for immigration enforcement purposes.

Despite Newsom’s objections, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has effectively nullified his ability to block deployment requests from the federal government. This decision has significant implications for the balance of power between states and the federal government, particularly in the realm of National Guard deployments.

Critics of the ruling argue that it sets a dangerous precedent by limiting states’ authority to make decisions about their own National Guard troops. They believe that governors should have the right to reject deployment requests that they deem to be inappropriate or unconstitutional. They also warn that this ruling could pave the way for increased federal intervention in state affairs.

On the other hand, supporters of the ruling assert that it upholds the supremacy of federal law and clarifies the division of powers between states and the federal government. They argue that the President has the authority to deploy National Guard troops for national security purposes, and that governors cannot unilaterally obstruct such deployments.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling on this matter is likely to have far-reaching implications for the relationship between states and the federal government, particularly in the context of National Guard deployments. It remains to be seen how this decision will shape future interactions between state governors and the President, and whether it will lead to further legal challenges or legislative changes.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Governor Newsom does not have the authority to veto deployment requests from President Trump has sparked controversy and debate over the balance of power between states and the federal government. This decision has significant implications for the division of powers and the relationship between state governors and the President, and is likely to shape future interactions in this area.

Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump’s order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments. https://t.co/bzV8NxXVqr

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 20, 2025

In recent news, Governor Newsom and various Democratic politicians have been in a heated debate with President Trump over the legality of his orders regarding deployment. It has been a contentious issue, with both sides adamant in their positions. However, a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit has shed some light on the matter, clarifying that Newsom does not have the authority to veto deployments as he previously claimed.

The dispute between Newsom and Trump has been ongoing, with Newsom insisting that Trump’s orders are unlawful and that he must agree to any requests for deployment. This has led to a standoff between the two political figures, with tensions running high on both sides. However, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has put an end to Newsom’s claims of having a veto over deployments, bringing some clarity to the situation.

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit is a significant development in this ongoing saga, as it clarifies the extent of Newsom’s authority when it comes to deployments. This decision has far-reaching implications for the relationship between state and federal governments, as it sets a precedent for future disputes of this nature. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of checks and balances in our political system, ensuring that no one individual or entity has unchecked power.

While Newsom and Democratic politicians may be disappointed by this ruling, it is a necessary step in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power between state and federal governments. It is essential that all parties involved respect the decisions of the courts and abide by the law, even if they may not agree with the outcome.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how Newsom and Trump navigate their relationship in light of this ruling. Will they be able to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the country, or will this ruling further strain their already fraught relationship? Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure – the Ninth Circuit’s decision has certainly added a new dimension to this ongoing political drama.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Newsom does not have the authority to veto deployments is a significant development in the ongoing dispute between Newsom and Trump. It clarifies the extent of Newsom’s powers and sets a precedent for future disputes of this nature. It is a reminder of the importance of checks and balances in our political system and the need to respect the decisions of the courts. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how Newsom and Trump navigate their relationship in light of this ruling.