The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 22 declined to rehear a case en banc that has become a flashpoint in the tug-of-war between federal and state authority over National Guard forces. The court’s refusal leaves in place a three-judge panel’s ruling that, for now, favors former President Donald Trump in a dispute with California Governor Gavin Newsom over the control and status of Guard troops.

Judge Milan D. Smith’s panel decision remains effective while the appeal advances through the courts. Judge Marsha S. Berzon filed a statement explaining the reasons for joining in the denial of rehearing; according to the court docket, her statement was joined by multiple judges. Judge Richard A. Gould registered a formal dissent from the decision to deny en banc review. The procedural posture means the contested deployment and command questions will be resolved under the panel opinion unless a higher court intervenes.

Political and legal observers have emphasized the stakes. Politico described the denial as effectively “blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops” and noted that “two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee ruled in Trump’s favor,” while rejecting the administration’s broader claim that courts had no role in reviewing such deployments. Those tensions — between state executives who command National Guard units in peacetime and the federal government’s ability to federalize forces — are at the heart of the litigation.

The Ninth Circuit’s action leaves open the path for emergency motions, further appeals and potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal advocates on both sides are expected to press for expedited consideration given the real-time operational implications for Guard units and state-level emergency planning. Courts will confront not only statutory questions about National Guard status under Title 10 and Title 32 but also recurring constitutional considerations about the allocation of military control in a federal system.

The case underscores how disputes over administrative authority and military control can spill into the courtroom and onto the national political stage. For governors, the immediate consequence is a narrower set of options for asserting command over state forces when confronted with federal intervention. For the federal executive branch, the ruling affirms judicial oversight of deployment decisions even as it preserves significant presidential prerogatives in national defense matters.

For voters and civic institutions, the decision illustrates the judiciary’s central role in arbitrating conflicts between elected officials from different levels of government. As the appeal proceeds, stakeholders including state officials, federal agencies and advocacy groups will weigh strategic and political responses, and the case may shape governance norms ahead of future deployments. The long-term legal outcome could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which would resolve the broader principles governing the balance of military authority between states and the federal government.