california atty

President Trump illegally usurped Gov. Gavin Newsom’s command of the California National Guard by ordering a surge troops deployed into Los Angeles and across the state amid protests against the White House’s mass deportation program last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The two-one decision split the president’s own appointees to the court, with Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle siding with Judge Jennifer Sung of Portland, a Biden pick, and Judge Mark J.Bennett of Honolulu dissenting.

“The order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” Sung wrote for the majority, calling Trump’s order “unconstitutional.”

The decision also appeared to foreclose what California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called “the Trump Administration’s transparent attempt” to preserve its right to call up California troops again under the same obscure statute — a novel legal maneuver administration lawyers said let the president seize command without invoking the far stronger Insurrection Act.

The 9th Circuit trio was among the first to weigh the law last June, after Trump federalized 4,000 National Guard soldiers in response to unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

California sued. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer quickly ruled to block the deployment. But Sung, Bennett and Miller stayed his order, finding that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That decision set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments, meaning courts had very little power to test the president’s rationale for sending troops into American streets.

At the time, the decision represented one of the president’s most sweeping second-term victories: a plug-and-play legal mechanism to deploy soldiers against civilians in cities across the country.

In Portland that fall, another 9th Circuit panel stayed U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s order to stand down troops, using the first trio’s precedent.

The Portland decision — based in part on data the Department of Justice later admitted was false — prompted an extraordinary filing by Judge Jay Bybee, who all but pleaded with the court to rehear the case and interpret the law differently.

“There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs,” Bybee wrote.

The issue quickly found its way to the Supreme Court, after a 7th Circuit panel found the president had provided “insufficient evidence” for deployment even under the 9th Circuit’s deference standard.

On Dec. 23, the Justices adopted a celebrated Georgetown scholar’s academic reading of the statute, saying it only allowed the president to commandeer national guard troops if the situation had already outmatched the standing army.

Federalized troops were ordered to leave Los Angeles in December.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit held that Trump’s claim that Los Angeles was in the grips of a rebellion last June “did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.”

Using “the plain text of the statute,” and “dictionary definitions of the disputed term,” the majority found the president had not furnished evidence of a “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole” — nor anything close to it.

Instead, Justice Department lawyers had relied on subsidiary definitions of “rebellion” that the 9th Circuit warned would allow the president to call up troops to quell almost any resistance, including peaceful protests.

“Resistance that is not violent, armed, organized, and against the government as a whole generally does not require a military response,” Sung wrote.

“Because Defendants have failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to legally execute the laws in California, they have not carried their burden to show that the President had the authority to federalize California’s National Guard,” Sung wrote.

It’s a good thing Mogwai don’t seem to age — “Gremlins 3” has been delayed until 2028.

Warner Bros. on Wednesday shared a brief teaser of the upcoming movie on Instagram along with its new release date. “Gremlins 3” will now hit theaters on Oct. 8, 2028, instead of Nov. 19, 2027.

The brief social media clip features Gizmo rustling around inside a backpack in an indiscernible location.

“Uh-oh,” the adorable furry creature says while peering through the unzipped opening as the new release date appears. Hopefully he doesn’t snack on anything he isn’t supposed to while he awaits his big-screen return.

“Gremlins 3” was officially announced by Warner Bros. Discovery boss David Zaslav during an earnings call in 2025. Original “Gremlins” writer Chris Columbus will helm the feature, which is produced by Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment. Spielberg is an executive producer.

It has been decades since Gizmo’s last big-screen adventure. The Mogwai and his misbehaved progeny debuted in the 1984 holiday classic “Gremlins” and returned in the 1990 follow-up, “Gremlins 2: The New Batch.” Directed by Joe Dante, the films established three key rules for handling the mysterious, big-eared creatures: Don’t get them wet, feed them after midnight or expose them to light. Gizmo’s origin story was explored more recently in the HBO Max animated series, “Gremlins: Secrets of the Mogwai.”

The release date shift follows the recent settlement with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta that has cleared the way for Paramount Skydance to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. According to Deadline, the change is unrelated to the pending merger.

A federal judge declined Thursday to rule immediately on a proposed settlement between Paramount Skydance and 12 state attorneys general, leaving the last major legal hurdle to the studio’s $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery unresolved for now.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín did not indicate how she would rule, but said she wanted more information before deciding whether to approve the proposed consent decree, a court-enforceable agreement that would allow the merger to proceed under certain conditions..

“I’m not the only one who has some questions for you all. There’s lots of interest,” said Judge Martínez-Olguín. “I appreciate people are interested, but I also want to make sure that I have everything that I’m going to consider in front of me.”

The judge said she would issue a ruling “in due course.”

The hearing comes three days after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced that the two sides had reached an agreement.

It requires the combined company to release at least 30 films in theaters each year, commit at least an additional $1.5 billion to domestic film production and set aside $47.5 million for workers affected by the merger.

“When theater owners have publicly said that supply is the problem, those are voices that carry weight because they’re in the market,” said Paula Blizzard, an attorney for California, during the hearing. “They are the people we’re trying to protect — the businesses and the competition that we are trying to protect.”

The settlement proposal also includes stipulations on how basic cable channel negotiations must proceed, creates a board intended to protect the editorial independence of CBS News and CNN, and bars Paramount from selling or closing its Melrose Ave. lot or Warner Bros.’ Burbank lot while requiring the company to operate them “in a manner consistent with past practices.”

An independent monitor will oversee the settlement implementation. The agreement, if approved by the judge, will be in effect for five years.

“Paramount wants to get to work. Paramount is doing this deal because it wants to compete. Netflix, Amazon, Disney are far larger streaming undertakings,” said Josh Holian, an attorney for Paramount, during the hearing. “Paramount believes that a transaction like this can be transformative in fueling its ability to compete in that market.”

Before ending the hearing, Judge Martínez-Olguín assigned the parties several tasks, which included addressing a letter from U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) who echoed some concerns about the proposal.

Booker, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, asked the judge to conduct an “independent public-interest review” before approving the settlement agreement. Because the U.S. Justice Department closed its investigation of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger without seeking any remedies, Booker argued, the proposal is “the only enforceable instrument that will govern” the combined company.

Martínez-Olguín asked the parties to submit their responses to Booker’s letter by Monday, Sept. 28 at noon.

Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav had told staff earlier this week that he expected the deal to close no later than early October.

The settlement has divided Hollywood, with some saying Bonta bowed to political pressure from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. During negotiations, Paramount threatened to move its studio out of state, which Newsom said he took seriously.

After the proposed settlement was announced, Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison said the combined company would remain in L.A.

Many in Hollywood are concerned about the threat of layoffs from the merger. Paramount has told Wall Street it plans to make more than $6 billion in cost cuts. A recent report commissioned by L.A. County estimated that 4,500 jobs could be lost over three years.