An appeals court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to maintain control over the National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.

This decision comes after a lower court judge initially found that Trump acted illegitimately by activating the soldiers without permission from California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The deployment marks the first instance since 1965 where a president has controlled a state's National Guard without gubernatorial approval.

The case could have significant implications for presidential power concerning troop deployments within the United States, particularly in light of Trump's directive for immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities.

Trump argued that the deployment was necessary for maintaining order, while Newsom contended that it exacerbated tensions, undermined local authority, and inefficiently used resources.

Despite the protests dwindling down, the ruling underscores a broader debate about executive power versus state autonomy.

The decision emanates from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which consists of judges appointed by both Trump and previous administrations.

During oral arguments, all judges signified their stance on the expansive latitude granted to presidents under federal law, suggesting courts should be cautious in intervening.

This case began when Newsom sued to halt Trump's directive, securing an initial victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.

Breyer's ruling emphasized that protests in Los Angeles did not constitute 'rebellion,' thereby limiting the legal authority for presidential intervention as outlined by federal law.

The Trump administration swiftly obtained a temporary stay from the appeals court, asserting that courts should not question presidential decisions.

Consequently, control of the California National Guard remains under federal jurisdiction while the lawsuit progresses.