Federal Appeals Courts Issue Rulings on Trump Policies: National Guard, Ballots, Bond Hearings

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Oct. 23 that President Donald Trump's June 2025 federalization of 4,000 California National Guard troops for Los Angeles exceeded his statutory authority, affirming a district court order blocking it. Judge Sung, a Biden appointee, wrote the opinion, joined by Trump appointee Eric Miller. Trump appointee Mark Bennett dissented. The panel held the administration had not made the showings required under the Supreme Court's December ruling in Trump v. Illinois, and it rejected the fallback claim of a rebellion or danger of one. The deployment has already ended. In a separate case, the 9th Circuit rejected as premature the Justice Department's appeal in a California election dispute, saying it lacked jurisdiction because the government had not given the district court enough time to consider its request for a temporary restraining order. The department had sought an order for Los Angeles County to segregate mail-in ballots of voters on a list of 20,000 alleged noncitizens. Also on Oct. 23, the 5th Circuit ruled 10-7 that immigrants in ICE custody during deportation proceedings have no right to bond hearings.

The right-leaning Daily Signal leads with the 5th Circuit's 10-7 bond-hearing ruling, calling it an immigration win for the Trump administration and using the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens." It does not mention the 9th Circuit rulings. Left-leaning Talking Points Memo covers the 9th Circuit election case instead. It calls the noncitizen list dubious and describes the administration's request as a scheme to disrupt elections. It details the 17-page per curiam opinion and the split among Judges Bennett, Sanchez and Bumatay, noting that Bennett and Sanchez would also have ruled against the administration on the merits. The two sides therefore report different cases, with the only overlap being that appellate courts ruled on Trump administration policies. The alternative outlets, ZeroHedge and Reason, add a third story: the Guard ruling. ZeroHedge stresses the statutory reasoning, while Reason stresses its limited immediate effect and its implications for judicial review of emergency powers.