In a legal saga that’s gripped the nation and tested the boundaries of federal authority, a federal judge in Chicago has indefinitely extended a restraining order that blocks President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Illinois. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry on October 22, 2025, is just one front in a series of high-stakes legal battles unfolding across the country as the Trump administration seeks to send troops into Democratic-led cities over the objections of local leaders.
The origins of this particular legal standoff go back to October 9, when Judge Perry first issued a temporary restraining order halting the deployment of about 700 National Guard troops—300 from Illinois and another 400 federalized from Texas—into the state. The Trump administration’s stated aim: to bolster immigration enforcement and quell protests that, according to federal officials, have sometimes turned violent and threatened federal property.
But Illinois officials, including the state’s attorney general, weren’t convinced. In court filings, they argued that the administration’s declarations about out-of-control protests and violence simply didn’t hold water. "In fact, applicants do not even attempt to rebut that much of the activity the declarants complained about was constitutionally protected," the state’s legal response stated, as reported by the Chicago Tribune. Their position was echoed by a three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously declined to grant a stay of Perry’s order on October 21. The panel, consisting of Judges Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, and Amy St. Eve, wrote, "The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority."
Despite these setbacks, the Trump administration hasn’t backed down. In a Supreme Court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer insisted, "Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive." The administration continues to press for an emergency order from the Supreme Court that would allow the deployment of Guard troops, even as it agreed to the extension of the temporary restraining order in Perry’s court. This move, however, comes with a caveat: should the Supreme Court rule in Trump’s favor, the president could deploy the troops immediately—even as the broader legal battle continues.
Judge Perry, for her part, is determined to keep the process moving. She made it clear at a recent status hearing that she wants to resolve the injunction issue quickly, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. "The problem with waiting is, every day we wait for them, you are losing time to prepare for a trial," Perry said, according to the Chicago Tribune. Still, she acknowledged the complexity of the issues at stake: "It does make sense to me that we take a deliberative approach here. These are complicated legal issues that have not been explored by the courts above us in a very long time."
Both sides have been ordered to confer within ten days to develop a plan for expedited discovery, with the possibility of a trial or injunction hearing as soon as November. Live witnesses could be called to testify, and the outcome could set a precedent for how and when the federal government can deploy the military domestically over state objections.
This legal drama isn’t confined to Illinois. Across the country, similar battles are playing out in courtrooms from the West Coast to the nation’s capital. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom is challenging the Trump administration’s deployment of Guard troops to Los Angeles. The case, which centers on whether the president violated federal law by sending troops in June after protests over immigration policy, has already seen a district court side with Newsom—only for an appeals court to allow the troops to remain under federal control while the lawsuit proceeds.
Meanwhile, in Portland, Oregon, the situation is equally tangled. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders: one preventing Trump from calling up Oregon National Guard troops for 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 Justice Department appealed, and a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel partially sided with the administration, but Immergut’s second order still prevents any immediate deployment. A hearing is scheduled to address whether that block should remain.
Legal challenges have also erupted in Washington, D.C., where more than 2,200 National Guard troops remain deployed, even though the official emergency ended in September. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is seeking a temporary injunction to halt the deployments, and the case has drawn filings from 45 states—23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 backing the attorney general’s lawsuit. Republican governors from several states have sent their own units to D.C., while others have pledged to bring their troops home by November 30 unless the situation changes.
In Tennessee, the debate has taken on a distinctly local flavor. Democratic elected officials in Memphis have sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment, arguing that Republican Governor Bill Lee, acting on Trump’s request, violated the state constitution. The constitution, they note, only allows the Guard to be called up during "rebellion or invasion"—and only with the approval of state lawmakers. Since October 10, Guard troops have been patrolling downtown Memphis, but officials say they have no arrest power and are primarily present as a show of force.
The legal battles over National Guard deployments have created a patchwork of overlapping rulings and temporary orders, with each case carrying its own unique set of facts and legal arguments. Yet the central question remains the same: just how far can the federal government go in deploying military force within U.S. borders, especially when state leaders object?
For now, the fate of the National Guard deployments hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court weighs whether to intervene. Judge Perry’s order in Chicago has bought Illinois—and perhaps other states—some breathing room, but the broader question of federal versus state authority is far from settled. As the courts deliberate, the nation watches closely, keenly aware that the outcome could reshape the relationship between Washington and the states for years to come.
The coming weeks promise more legal fireworks, as hearings and rulings in Illinois, California, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., could tip the scales one way or another. For now, though, the status quo holds: no National Guard deployment in Illinois, and a legal standoff that shows no sign of abating.
