Late Wednesday night, the Trump administration secured a favorable ruling from an appellate court concerning the contentious federal deployment of state National Guard troops to manage unrest in American cities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request for a full court rehearing in the dispute between California Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, as stated in the order issued without a majority opinion.

Back in late June, a panel of three judges affirmed that while courts should oversee such matters, they need to be “highly deferential” to executive decisions in military contexts. They granted a stay, pending further appeal, on a lower court injunction that sided with Trump. The panel suggested that Trump’s actions to deploy California’s National Guard to safeguard federal property and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from protesters were “likely” lawful.

In early July, a 9th Circuit judge independently requested the full court to reevaluate the case. This prompted a series of motions and a parallel legal confrontation as Newsom and Trump continued their appellate dispute, supported by numerous amicus briefs.

The appellate court conducted a hearing on the en banc request on Wednesday afternoon, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Now, without one line of reasoning, a majority of active judges have declined to take up the matter of the months-old stay pending appeal.

“A judge of this court sua sponte requested a vote on whether to rehear this case en banc,” the one-page order reads. “A vote was taken, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Rehearing en banc is DENIED.”

There are two dissents attached to the order — one formal and one less than formal. One of the dissents is stylized as a “statement” while the other, penned by a lone judge, is stylized as a “dissent.”

The statement by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, a Bill Clinton appointee, was joined by 10 other judges — including three other senior judges. In the U.S. judiciary, senior judges are not allowed to vote on motions to rehear a case en banc; senior judges are allowed to perform other dispute-related work, like writing statements.

Berzon frames the case as a historical aberration.

“This case presents an issue of the gravest consequence: the peacetime deployment of military troops in American cities,” the statement begins. “For the first time in the nearly 250-year history of this country, the President claims extraordinary, unilateral powers to order state National Guard troops onto the streets of select cities in response to short-term, hyper-localized, domestic protests of federal policies. This claimed authority clashes directly with the traditional strong resistance of Americans to military intrusion into civil affairs.”

The statement goes on to describe the “venerable tradition” of opposing domestic military interventions as rooted in anti-British sentiment “preceding the American Revolution.” Such sentiment, the statement says, is “reflected in the Declaration of Independence and several provisions in the Constitution.”

The 11 judges describe Trump’s federalization and deployment of California’s troops as “improper” and characterize the panel’s deference to the executive branch as “fundamentally erroneous.”

The statement goes on like this, at length:

[T]he panel in this case should have considered whether the President was likely to succeed in showing that he complied with the very specific terms of the purely statutory grant of authority when he ordered the California National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles over the objection of state authorities. Absent judicial insistence on compliance with strict statutory limits on the use of the military for domestic purposes, this country could devolve into one in which the use of military force displaces the rule of law, principles of federalism, and the federal separation of powers, all fundamental precepts of our democracy long understood as protecting the liberties of individuals and the assurance of self-governance.

The June panel decision, in its precedential effect on other courts, has caused a great deal of turmoil as such federalizations and deployments have continued apace, the statement argues.

“[G]iven the recent and ongoing rash of deployments of National Guard troops to city streets in response to localized protests, based on unsupported assertions about crime and disorder, this court should have addressed the legal principles governing such deployments now, not later,” the 11-judge statement continues.

The formal dissent, penned by U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, who is in active status, fully joins the Berzon statement — and refers to the statement as a “well-reasoned dissent.”

While Berzon spends considerable time analyzing the statutes at issue in the case, Gould tersely dissects the role of the courts — and, in so doing, takes aim at his colleagues for denying en banc review.

“A case that determines when a President may federalize and deploy American troops into our own cities warranted a more extensive consideration,” Gould writes. “When Congress places limits on the President’s statutory powers, courts must enforce them. Our Court’s latest foray into the presidential powers arena abdicated that key responsibility.”

The June panel, for its part, said a president can satisfy the National Guard in federal service statute when an exercise of power “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment.”

Gould lambastes the upshot of that ruling.

“This ill-considered rule in our Circuit gives the President an almost unfettered ability to deploy American troops into our cities,” the dissent reads. “Under this rule, it is difficult for me to conceive of a likely situation in which a court could determine a President did not meet this unprecedented and extremely deferential standard.”

To hear the dissent tell it, his colleagues effectively rendered the statute meaningless.

“When Congress limits statutory grants of presidential power, its words must mean something if our constitutional design is to endure,” Gould goes on. “The President may not exercise power merely by invoking the authorizing statute’s words regardless of their application to the situation at hand.”