Legal battles over the deployment of National Guard troops in Democratic-led cities have reached a fever pitch, with courtrooms from Portland to Washington, D.C., and Chicago serving as the latest battlegrounds in an escalating clash between federal authority and local resistance. At the heart of the conflict is President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to send military forces into cities that have challenged his administration, sparking a flurry of lawsuits, emergency orders, and high-stakes judicial decisions that could shape the boundaries of executive power for years to come.
In Portland, Oregon, the deployment of 200 National Guard troops remains in limbo after a dramatic series of court maneuvers. On October 25, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hit the brakes on any troop deployment, issuing an administrative pause until all 29 active judges on the court decide whether to conduct a “full court” review—known in legal circles as an en banc hearing—of a controversial 2-1 decision made earlier in the week. That earlier ruling, handed down by appellate judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade (both appointed by Trump), essentially granted the president sweeping authority to federalize state National Guard units and dispatch them whenever he deems it necessary to protect federal interests, with the court declaring such decisions outside the reach of judicial review.
The implications of that ruling were immediate and profound. According to Oregon Capital Chronicle, the majority opinion “handed the president unlimited power to call up National Guard troops whenever there is interference with federal functions,” a move that alarmed legal scholars and state officials alike. The court’s pause means that no National Guard troops can be sent to Portland until at least the evening of October 28, 2025, pending the outcome of the judges’ deliberations. If the majority of the 29 judges agree to a full review, Nelson and Bade’s decision would be voided, and an 11-judge panel would take up the case, likely delaying Oregon’s scheduled trial against the federal government, set for October 29.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who has been at the center of the Portland fight, faces her own legal tightrope. Earlier this month, she issued two temporary restraining orders—one barring Trump from calling up Oregon troops to Portland, and another blocking him from sending any Guard members to Oregon after he tried to sidestep the first order by deploying California troops instead. The 9th Circuit panel’s decision put the first order on hold, but the fate of the second remains uncertain. After a hearing on October 25, Immergut said she would issue her decision by October 27, “if not sooner.” As reported by The Dispatch, the Department of Justice has insisted that Immergut must dissolve her second order immediately, while Oregon’s attorneys argue she must wait to see if the 9th Circuit will reconsider the panel’s ruling.
The legal wrangling is not confined to the Pacific Northwest. In the nation’s capital, more than 2,000 National Guard troops remain on the streets, months after President Trump declared a crime emergency in Washington, D.C., in August 2025 and ordered the deployment of over 2,300 Guard members from eight states and the district. The Department of Justice claims this show of force is necessary to combat violent crime, despite its own data showing crime rates at a 30-year low. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb has challenged the deployment, calling it a threat to “our constitutional democracy.” On October 24, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb heard arguments on Schwalb’s request for an order to remove the troops, with government lawyers dismissing the lawsuit as a “political stunt.”
The continued presence of troops—more than 2,200 as of late October, according to The Dispatch—has drawn sharp criticism from local leaders and civil liberties groups, who warn of the precedent being set. Attorneys from Schwalb’s office wrote, “Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand.” Some states have announced plans to bring their Guard units home by November 30, unless deployments are extended, but the uncertainty lingers.
Elsewhere, in West Virginia, the deployment of 300 to 400 Guard members to Washington, D.C., is under scrutiny. The West Virginia Citizen Action Group, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, is challenging Governor Patrick Morrisey’s authority to send troops out of state, arguing that state law limits such deployments to specific emergencies. “The Governor cannot transform our citizen-soldiers into a roving police force available at the whim of federal officials who bypass proper legal channels,” the group’s attorneys argued in court documents. The state’s attorney general has countered that the deployment was authorized under federal law and has asked the court to dismiss the challenge, questioning the group’s standing. Judge Richard D. Lindsay has continued the hearing to November 3 to allow further arguments on the governor’s authority.
Chicago, too, finds itself entangled in the legal web. U.S. District Judge April Perry blocked the deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area on October 22, pending a decision in her court or intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal government has agreed to extend that order for now, but is also seeking an emergency order from the Supreme Court to allow the deployment. Lawyers for Chicago and Illinois have urged the high court to maintain the block, calling the deployment a “dramatic step.”
These overlapping legal battles underscore the deep divisions between the White House and local governments over the use of military force in American cities. According to The Dispatch, the disputes reflect “resistance from local officials against President Trump’s efforts to deploy military forces in Democratic-run cities.” The stakes are high—not just for the cities involved, but for the broader balance of power between the federal government and the states. Willamette University professor Norman Williams, a constitutional law expert, told Oregon Capital Chronicle that the 9th Circuit rarely grants full court reviews, but Oregon’s argument that the panel’s decision conflicts with prior precedent may sway the judges. Should the review be granted, the process could drag on for weeks, further delaying any deployment and the underlying trial over federal authority.
As of October 25, 2025, the status of National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C., Oregon, Chicago, and West Virginia remains unsettled, with court hearings scheduled into early November. The outcome of these cases could redefine the limits of presidential power in times of domestic crisis, and determine just how far the federal government can go in asserting control over local law enforcement. For now, the streets of Portland, Washington, and Chicago remain a vivid tableau of a constitutional struggle that shows no sign of abating.
With judges weighing their next moves and legal teams preparing for further hearings, the nation watches closely, aware that the decisions made in these courtrooms will echo far beyond the cities at their center.
