The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities.

The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found President Donald Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The California governor’s office and the White House didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.

The case started last week when Newsom sued to block Trump’s command to mobilize 4,000 National Guard troops to deal with anti-immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles.

Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marine troops to be mobilized, but the governor’s lawsuit and the court decisions did not deal with that.

Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources.

Conditions in Los Angeles, meanwhile, have calmed significantly over the past week, and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles announced Tuesday that she was ending the downtown curfew, a week after it had first been imposed. She said local law enforcement efforts have been “largely successful” at reimposing order.

Judges’ reasoning

“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard ... is completely insulated from judicial review,” Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. “Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor ... our review of that decision must be highly deferential.”

The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday’s hearing, appearing to reject the federal government’s assertion that courts had no right to review the president’s actions, while also undercutting California’s claim that Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to quell a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.”

The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, also in San Francisco.

The larger question

Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order last Thursday would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.”

Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.

Bennett’s opinion directly refuted the argument — made by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate in Tuesday’s hearing — that the decision to federalize national guard troops was “unreviewable.”

“Defendants argue that this language precludes review,” the judge wrote. “(But Supreme Court precedent) does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”

He also quoted at length from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling v. Constantin, writing “(t)he nature of the (president’s) power also necessarily implies that there is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.”

Shumate told the judge he didn’t know the case when Bennett asked him about it early in Tuesday’s hearing.

Posse Comitatus Act

One thing Thursday’s ruling did not touch is whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement — an allegation California leveled in its original complaint, but which Breyer effectively tabled last week.

In the meantime, residents of an increasingly quiet Los Angeles will have to live with the growing number of federal troops.

This report contains information from the Associated Press and New York Times.