Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning before an appeals court ordered their withdrawal by noon Monday.
Government officials did not immediately confirm whether the troops had withdrawn. But just after midnight on Sunday, video taken by The Times outside the Royal Federal Building downtown showed a large tactical truck and four white passenger cars leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.
Court records show about 300 California troopers remain under federal control, including about 100 active in Los Angeles as of last week.
“There were more people than usual, and everyone left and no one stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has been demonstrating outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.
Martinez said the troops were briefly spotted later in the day but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon.
The developments that forced the troops to leave are part of a massive legal battle that continues for control of Union soldiers across the country.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday, but softened a stricter order issued by a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s military. Trump in June brought thousands of California National Guard troops to the federal fold to quell unrest in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement.
“For the first time in six months, the military will not be deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California attorneys said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a welcome and difficult step in the right direction.”
Friday’s ruling came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president this summer one of his most sweeping victories of his second term, finding that the California rollout could proceed under a vague and largely untested provision of the law.
That precedent set “high deference” as the standard for reviewing deployments, which have since sprung up across the country and limited debate even in non-legally binding courts.
But the so-called Newsom standard — in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the lead plaintiff — has come under intense scrutiny and growing public condemnation in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration claims it gives the government new and greater powers.
In October, the Seventh Circuit – the appeals court that covers Illinois – found the president’s claims to have “insufficient evidence” and upheld a decision to block the deployment of troops in and around Chicago.
“Even with high deference to the government’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the protests in Illinois significantly impeded the ability of federal officials to enforce federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.
The ruling is currently under review by the Supreme Court.
In November, the Ninth Circuit reversed its previous decision to allow Trump’s federalization of Oregon to move forward amid claims that the Justice Department misrepresented material facts in its filings. The case is being reviewed by a larger panel of the Appellate Division, with a decision expected early next year.
Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers doubled down on their claims of nearly total authority, arguing that federal troops remain permanently under the president’s command and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.
When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Justice Department whether federal troops could be “permanently drafted” under statutes the government interpreted at an October hearing, the answer was an unequivocal “yes.”
“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can stay in federal service,” said the deputy assistant attorney. General Eric MacArthur said.
The fate of 300 federal soldiers in California currently hangs in the balance, although a court order currently prohibits troops from deploying in California and Oregon.
Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.
