Legal battles over President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the National Guard in Democratic-led cities have reached a fever pitch, with federal courts from Chicago to Los Angeles and Portland issuing a dizzying array of rulings, extensions, and restraining orders. At the heart of the matter is whether Trump can override state and local officials’ objections and send troops into cities roiled by protest and political tension. As of October 22, 2025, the fate of these deployments hangs in the balance, awaiting a pivotal decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Chicago, the situation remains especially tense. U.S. District Judge April Perry has become a central figure in the unfolding drama, issuing and repeatedly extending a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks the deployment of National Guard troops to the city. According to Associated Press and Block Club Chicago, Perry’s most recent move on October 22 was to extend the TRO for another 30 days, or potentially until a final judgment is reached in the state’s lawsuit challenging Trump’s federalization of the Guard. Perry’s rationale was clear: “The problem with waiting is, every day we wait for them, you are losing time … so we will not wait. If they rule today, we may have to reset the schedule tomorrow.”
The Trump administration, for its part, has not backed down. In a Supreme Court filing on October 21, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, “Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive.” The administration insists that the question of whether to federalize the National Guard is “committed exclusively to the president’s discretion,” calling Illinois’ legal arguments “outlandish.” Yet, in court, Department of Justice attorney Jody Lowenstein indicated a willingness to extend the protective order “until a final judgment,” preferring to wait for the Supreme Court’s imminent decision rather than rush proceedings at the district level.
Attorneys for Chicago and Illinois, meanwhile, have urged the Supreme Court to maintain the block, describing the proposed deployment as a “dramatic step.” They argue that there is no rebellion or invasion in Illinois or Chicago that would justify such federal intervention, and that the federal government remains fully capable of executing the law without military involvement. Hundreds of Guard troops remain stationed at a base in the Chicago suburbs, their deployment to the city itself stymied for now.
This legal tug-of-war is not unique to Chicago. Across the country, similar disputes are playing out in courts, each with its own twists and turns. In Oregon, President Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard to Portland have been repeatedly stymied by federal courts. Judge Karin Immergut issued two restraining orders earlier in October: one blocking Trump from calling up Oregon troops, and another barring him from deploying any Guard members to Oregon at all, after he attempted to sidestep the first order by sending in California troops. The Justice Department appealed the first order and, in a 2-1 ruling on October 20, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the administration, allowing Trump to take command of 200 Oregon Guard troops. Yet, as AP reports, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, meaning actual deployment is still blocked. A hearing is set for October 24 to consider dissolving that order, and the state of Oregon is petitioning the 9th Circuit to reconsider the recent ruling.
California is facing its own protracted legal showdown. The deployment of Guard troops to Los Angeles after protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown has led to a fierce court battle between the Trump administration and Governor Gavin Newsom. On June 13, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer found that the administration had violated federal law by sending troops to Los Angeles, ordering control of California’s Guard members returned to the state. However, an emergency ruling by an appeals court panel allowed the troops to remain under federal control while the lawsuit proceeds. On October 22, a 9th Circuit panel heard arguments on whether to vacate Breyer’s June order, and is also handling the administration’s appeal of a September 2 ruling that found a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law prohibiting military enforcement of domestic laws.
Washington, D.C., has seen its own surge of Guard deployments—and legal challenges. Since late August, more than 300 Guard members from West Virginia and other states have been stationed in the nation’s capital, supporting Trump’s initiative. A state court hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, is scheduled for October 24 to address a lawsuit seeking to block the deployment of the state’s Guard to D.C. Meanwhile, a separate federal court is considering a request from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Scwalb for a temporary injunction to halt the deployment of over 2,000 guardsmen. The issue has drawn national attention, with forty-five states filing briefs: twenty-three supporting the administration’s actions, and twenty-two backing the attorney general’s lawsuit. Although the official emergency period ended in September, over 2,200 troops remain in D.C., though several states have indicated they will withdraw their units by November 30 unless circumstances change.
Memphis, Tennessee, is another flashpoint in this national debate. On October 17, Democratic officials filed suit to stop the ongoing deployment of the National Guard in Memphis, arguing that Republican Governor Bill Lee, acting at Trump’s request, violated the state constitution. The Tennessee constitution states the Guard can only be called up during “rebellion or invasion”—and only with the blessing of state lawmakers. Since October 10, Guard troops have been patrolling downtown Memphis, including near the city’s iconic Pyramid, wearing fatigues and protective vests labeled “military police.” Officials have emphasized that these Guard members have no arrest power.
All these court cases share a common thread: the question of presidential authority versus state and local autonomy, especially in the face of protest and unrest. The Trump administration has framed the deployments as necessary to restore order and protect federal facilities, such as the ICE processing center in Broadview, Illinois, which has been a frequent site of protests. Opponents, however, argue that the president is overreaching, using military force to circumvent local control and escalate tensions.
With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to weigh in, the stakes could hardly be higher. The outcome will not only determine the immediate fate of National Guard deployments in Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis, but could also set a precedent for the balance of federal and state powers in times of civil unrest. For now, the troops remain in limbo—stationed on bases, waiting for a final word from the nation’s highest court.
As legal teams on both sides prepare for the next round of arguments, city officials, governors, and residents watch closely, knowing that the court’s decision will shape the contours of American democracy and federalism for years to come.
