What You Need to Know if President Trump Deploys the Military or National Guard Troops to Your State

Written by Joey Mogul, Director of Movement Partnerships at Movement Law Lab

Updated as of 1.21.26

In the summer of 2025, President Trump deployed federal military forces and National Guard units to Los Angeles and D.C. In the latter half of 2025, President Trump repeatedly tried to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and Portland, Oregon but his administration was blocked by the federal courts, and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court, from doing so. 

In September of 2025, Tennessee’s National Guard members were deployed to Memphis, Tennessee and in December of 2025, Louisiana’s National Guard members deployed to New Orleans with the permission of their respective Governors. 

These deployments are unnecessary, immoral, and they are unconstitutional and illegal when invoked without the consent of the State Governor.

Know Your Rights (KYR)

Important Reminder: You have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution and state law regardless of who is purportedly enforcing the law – a National Guard member, military member, police, ICE, FBI, etc., including if the Insurrection Act is involved by the President. Know your rights in your state and assert them. See the Resources below for KYR materials.

What is the National Guard?

The National Guard is a military force composed of the Army and Air National Guard, who are engaged part-time or on an as-needed basis in states and D.C. In states, the National Guard is commanded by the Governor.

What is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)?

The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (18 U.S.C. §1385) is a federal law that forbids the U.S. military — federal armed forces, and National Guard troops who have been called into federal service —  from engaging in actions that exert compulsory power over civilians. In other words, the military cannot engage in civilian law enforcement: they cannot stop, search or arrest civilians (as well as engage in pursuits, apprehension, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants according to military training). But, there are times the PCA does not apply, including if the Insurrection Act is invoked. See below.

When Can the National Guard Be Deployed in Your City

There are various laws and statutes, many old and untested, that allow for the National Guard and other military troops to be deployed in the U.S. Generally, there are 3 ways the National Guard may be deployed: 

  1. A State Governor may deploy the National Guard (State Active Duty (SAD)) and serves as the Commander of the Guard (i.e., disaster relief). The PCA does not apply. 

  2. National Guard may be deployed by the President to execute state/federal missions with the consent of a State Governor. The Guard remains under the control of the State Governor but paid with federal funds. (Fed Law Title 32 USC). The PCA does not apply.

    1. National Guard troops can engage in civilian law enforcement if: 1) under state law, they are given peace officer status; 2) if there is no state law, they are deputized by state or local law enforcement agencies to enforce state law; or 3) if they are deputized by a federal law enforcement agency. 

    2. Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, “a member of the National Guard may be ordered to perform training or other duty . . .” 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).  

  3. The President may invoke the National Guard to be deployed in a state for a limited set of circumstances, with or without the consent of that Governor. If the President federalizes the National Guard, the National Guard is under the same chain of command as active-duty military, with federalized National Guard troops now falling under the command of the Secretary of Defense and POTUS. 

    1. The President can deploy troops if a State Governor asks for aid to suppress an insurrection in the state. (10 USC § 251). 

    2. The President can deploy troops to suppress an “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “domestic violence” that prevents the execution of laws with or without the consent of the Governor. (The Insurrection Act, Title 10 USC §§ 251-55). (1)

      1. Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the PCA and allows the President to deploy the military or National Guard to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement, i.e., these troops can arrest, detain and engage in other law enforcement activities.

      2. Invocation of the Insurrection Act is not the same as martial law. See below.

The President can deploy troops to stop an “invasion” by a foreign nation, a “rebellion” against the authority of the government of the U.S., or is unable to execute the law with regular forces, i.e., military forces.(10 USC § 12406, recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. ___ (December 23, 2025). The PCA applies.

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled President Trump Could Not Deploy National Guard Troops to California, Illinois, and Portland, Oregon in 2025

On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked theTrump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, ruling he did not have the authority to invoke the use of the National Guard pursuant to 10 USC § 12406(3).  This momentous decision defeated and/undermined Trump and his administration's legal arguments for deploying National Guard troops in California and Portland, Oregon.  On December 31, 2025, President Trump announced that he was dropping his attempts to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon but stated he may seek to deploy them again. He has previously indicated he may use the Insurrection Act in the future, a deployment likely to be challenged in the courts.

“Some of the rulings in California, Illinois, and Oregon cases pertaining to the National Guard responded to motions brought by plaintiffs seeking temporary relief: either a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction to stop the deployment of National Guard troops. In those cases, the rulings were not final rulings on the merits of the legal claims and required a lower standard of proof.  For example, in the Illinois case, the District Court entered a TRO which required the plaintiffs to show: 1) a likelihood of success on the merits [of the claim], and 2) a threat of harm absent a stay. Satisfying these elements, the Court also considered 3) the balance of the harms, primarily in terms of the balance of risks of irreparable harm in case of judicial error as well 4) the public interest. 

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Illinois v. Trump may have defeated the current deployments, the underlying litigation on the merits of the claims may proceed. As of this January 2026, the parties in the respective litigation either have a stay or are getting extensions to determine if or how the case will proceed.”

Side Bar

What Happened in California

The Trump administration alleged people damaged federal property and harmed federal agents in the midst of immigration raids in June of 2025. President Trump used 10 USC § 12406 to federalize and deploy California’s (CA) National Guard - at one point 4,000 National Guard members - to protect federal personnel and property for 60 days. The Trump administration also deployed 700 U.S. Marines to protect federal personnel, property, and functions, claiming he had the inherent Constitutional power to do so (this executive branch theory has not been endorsed by the Courts). The CA National Guard members and Marines comprised Task Force 51 (TF51).

President Trump’s invocation of 10 USC § 12406 to patrol streets in a major city in support of routine law enforcement activities given the circumstances was unprecedented.

Invocation of CA National Guard Troops Allowed by the Ninth Circuit in June of 2025. 

Governor Newsom and the State of California sued the Trump administration, challenging President Trump’s federalization of CA’s National Guard. A District Court (trial court) in California entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) returning the National Guard to the command of Governor Newsom, but a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a decision (2) staying the TRO, allowing the Trump administration to retain command of the CA National Guard. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled President Trump was entitled to deference invoking § 12406 and federalizing the CA National Guard to execute the laws. 

The ultimate issues in this litigation - whether President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard is capable of review by the courts and if so whether the federalization is lawful -  is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (3)

How military troops were deployed and whether their actions violated the PCA were not addressed on appeal in this case. 

A District Court Ruled the Action of the National Guard in CA Violated the PCA.

Governor Newsom and the State of California also sued the Trump Administration claiming the actions of TF51 violated the PCA. After a three day trial, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California ruled (4) that the Trump Administration willfully violated the PCA when the Department of Defense (DOD) systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockages, engage in crowd control and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around LA. 

The District Court granted an injunction enjoining (stopping) Secretary Hegseth and the DOD from:

Deploying, ordering, training, or using the CA National Guard and any military troops from executing the law, which includes engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.

The Trump administration appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of this decision on September 4, 2025 to allow for a decision on the merits of the case. This case is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (5)

A District Court Ruled the Trump Administration Could Not Re-federalize the CA National Guard in August and October of 2025.

Over the summer many of the California National Guard members were being drawn down from deployment, but on August 5, 2025, Secretary Hegseth issued a new order federalizing 300 members of the California National Guard for 90 days through November 4, 2025 relying on 10 USC § 12406. On October 16, 2025, an additional order was issued continuing to federalize 300 members of California’s National Guard through February 2, 2026 again relying on 10 USC § 12406. Purportedly, the National Guard were federalized to protect federal functions, personnel and property. Governor Newsom and the State of California again sued the Trump administration seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the August 5th and October 16th orders.

The District Court ruled that Governor Newsom and the State of California were likely to succeed in demonstrating the invocation of California’s National Guard violated 10 USC § 12406 and the Tenth Amendment. The Court found that there was no colorable basis to conclude the President was “significantly impeded” from executing federal law or that he was unable to execute federal law using regular forces as required by 10 USC § 12406(3) (assessing both military and civilian forces).  Moreover, the Court found any assertion that the Federal Government was unable to execute federal laws in California was “unsupported” and “borders on a misrepresentation.” The Court also found there was no danger of a rebellion and that the people’s right to protest governmental actions was protected by the First Amendment. 

The District Court entered a preliminary injunction temporarily enjoining the Trump administration from deploying members of the California National Guard and directed the administration to return control of the National Guard to Governor Newsom.  The order entered by the District Court was stayed to allow the Trump administration to appeal that decision to the Ninth Circuit. 

The Ninth Circuit originally stayed the District Court’s preliminary injunction to the extent it ordered the Trump administration to return California’s National Guard to Governor Newsom. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. ___ (2025), the Trump administration withdrew their motion and the Ninth Circuit vacated its order staying the District Court’s preliminary injunction.

What Happened in Oregon

On September 27, 2025, President Trump posted on social media that he was directing Secretary Hegseth to provide troops to what he claimed was “War ravaged Portland” and any ICE facilities being attacked by  “Antifa” (6) and others (he also made several other social media posts regarding Portland). The following day (9.28.25), Secretary Hegeseth issued a memorandum authorizing the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members, over the objection of Governor Kotek. Secretary Hegseth relied on President Trump’s June 7, 2025 presidential memorandum federalizing National Guard units pursuant to 10 USC § 12406, as well as military forces, to protect ICE facilities, federal property, personnel, and functions nationwide.

On September 28, 2025, the State of Oregon and the City of Portland sued the Trump administration, challenging the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard, and sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Trump administration argued it was entitled to deploy the Oregon National Guard in response to alleged acts of violence during several days of protests at a Portland ICE facility in June of 2025 that resulted in arrests of some protestors and the temporary closure of the facility for 24 days due to damage of the facility’s card readers.  However, evidence presented in the litigation of protest activity at the ICE facility weeks and days before the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard generally indicated that the protests were relatively small and did not result in any significant incidents or disruptions. 

First TRO: On October 4, 2025, District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut of the Northern District of Oregon entered a Temporary Restraining Order (7) (TRO) enjoining (stopping) the federalization and deployment of Oregon’s National Guard to Portland. The Court found the State and City would likely succeed in demonstrating that the Trump administration did not have a sufficient basis to invoke Oregon’s National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(3) because the circumstances on the ground demonstrated regular law enforcement officers were able to execute federal law, and President Trump’s determination otherwise “was simply untethered to the facts.” The Court also ruled that President Trump and his administration did not have a sufficient basis to invoke the Oregon National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(2), finding that the protests at the ICE facility did not amount to a rebellion. The Court also ruled the invocation of Oregon’s National Guard violated the Tenth Amendment. The court did not reach other legal arguments, including those regarding the PCA. (8)

Second TRO: The following day, on October 5, 2025, over 100 federalized members of California’s National Guard were deployed and arrived at the Portland Air National Guard base, with an additional 99 members set to arrive in Portland later that day (9). In response, the State of Oregon, the City of Portland, and the State of California jointly filed a lawsuit seeking a second TRO against the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of the California National Guard was an attempt to circumvent the First TRO.  On October 5, 2025, Judge Immergut entered a second TRO temporarily enjoining (stopping) federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon. 

Permanent Injunction: After a three day trial, District Court Judge Immergut of the District Court of Oregon ruled (10) that the Trump administration exceeded its authority in federalizing and deploying National Guard members from Oregon, California and Texas to the ICE facility in Portland Oregon in violation of 10 USC § 12406 and the Tenth Amendment. The court further ruled, based on the evidence, (11) that there was neither “a rebellion or a danger of rebellion” to invoke the National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(2), and that opposition to a law or practice of the government does not constitute a rebellion (citing past protest moments in this U.S.).  The Court also ruled that the President was not unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the U.S. as required to federalize troops pursuant to 10 USC § 12406(3). 

The trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining (i.e., stopping) the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying members of any National Guard units to the ICE facility in Portland, Oregon.  The Trump administration appealed the permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the permanent injunction to the extent that it precluded the Trump administration from federalizing Oregon’s National Guard units, but left in place the part of the order precluding the deployment of National Guard units. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. ___ (December 23, 2025), the Trump administration withdrew their motion and agreed to the dissolution of the stay of the District Court order enjoining the deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon. The Trump administration also indicated the National Guard troops in Oregon were being demobilized. The Ninth Circuit vacated its stay of the District Court’s permanent injunction.

The appeal of the District Court’s ruling on the merits underlying the permanent injunction are on appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Oregon v. Trump, 25-7194 (consolidated with the prior appeal of the First TRO (Oregon v. Trump, 26-6269)).

What Happened in Illinois

On October 4, 2025, President Trump ordered the federalization and deployment of “at least” 300 members of the Illinois National Guard in this state of Illinois pursuant to 10 USC § 12406, over Governor Pritzker’s objection. The Trump administration claimed National Guard units were needed to protect the Broadview (Immigration) Detention Center (located in a suburb outside of Chicago), other federal property, ICE, and federal personnel enforcing federal law. The administration also alleged that incidents of violence and threats of violence were impeding the execution of federal law. On October 4, 2025, Secretary Hegeseth also requested the State of Illinois agree to the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard members pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). Governor Pritzker refused the request. On October 6, 2025, 200 Texas National Guard units arrived in Illinois (with an anticipated 400 members total) and were being set to be deployed pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) (an unprecedented action to have one State’s National Guard unit deployed in another State over that State’s objection; it was also attempted in Oregon). 

On October 6, 2025, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago sued the Trump administration challenging the deployment of any National Guard units. The State and City claimed President Trump’s deployment of troops was not made in good faith and instead was to punish elected state officials because of the Trump administration's objections to State and City policies, including sanctuary laws. (12) The State and City also argued there was no need for military or National Guard units to address issues of crime in Chicago, an issue President Trump has repeatedly raised in the media. 

On October 9, 2025, a District Court in Illinois entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing the Trump Administration from federalizing and deploying any National Guard units in Illinois for 14 days. The Court found that federal governments' assertions of violence were not reliable. (13) Further, the Court found that the State and City made a clear showing that the Trump Administration exceeded its authority to invoke the National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(2) or § 12406(3) because there was no evidence of a rebellion or an inability to enforce federal laws through regular military forces. The Court also ruled the deployment of the National Guard for the purpose of so-called crime control, would violate the Tenth Amendment. The Court did not reach any arguments about the PCA.

The Trump administration appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay to the part of the District Court order preventing the Trump administration from federalizing National Guard units, but left in place the part of the order preventing units from being deployed in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling finding the Trump administration did not meet its burden under 10 USC § 12406 to demonstrate a rebellion or the inability to enforce federal law with regular forces. (14)

U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. ___ (2025)

On October 17, the Trump administration appealed the Illinois case to the U.S. Supreme Court and requested a stay of the District Court’s temporary restraining order. On December 23, 2025, the majority of the Court, in a 6-3 decision, (15) denied the Government’s request to stay the District Court ruling prohibiting the deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois. The Government had argued pursuant to 10 USC § 12406(3) they were unable with the use of “regular forces” to execute the immigration laws of the U.S. At issue was whether “regular forces” meant civilian law enforcement officials as the Government contended versus military forces as the District Court and State of Illinois/City of Chicago contended. The majority of the Court determined that the term “regular forces” likely refers to the regular forces of the U.S. military (not the National Guard). The Court found that the Government had failed to identify an authority that permitted the use of the military to execute the laws in Illinois. Moreover, the majority found that the Government failed to demonstrate that 10 USC § 12406(3) allowed the President to exercise his inherent Constitutional authority to use the military to protect federal personnel and property. Thus, the District Court’s order staying the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois remained in effect. (16)

The Trump Administration's Deployment of National Guard Troops to New Orleans, Louisiana and Memphis, Tennessee pursuant to 32 USC § 502

What is Happening in New Orleans

On December 23, 2025, Secretary of War Hegseth ordered the deployment of 350 Louisiana National Guard members to New Orleans upon the request and with permission of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry pursuant to Title 32 USC. The Guard is currently set to remain in New Orleans through Mardi Gras until February 28, 2026 purportedly to support the surge of federal immigration law enforcement officials that began in December of 2025 and to address issues of “crime.”

What Is Happening in Tennessee

On September 15, 2025, President Trump met with Tennessee Governor Bill Lee and issued a memorandum entitled “Restoring Law and Order in Memphis” creating a “Memphis Safety Task Force.” The Task Force, composed of several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, was purportedly created to address “violent crime” in Memphis. Pursuant to the order, Secretary of War Hegseth, (17)with the consent of Governor Lee, deployed Tennessee’s National Guard pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). The Department of War indicated it was prepared to authorize and fund up to 1,000 Tennessee National Guard members to join the Memphis Safety Task Force. On October 10, 2025, Tennessee National Guard members were deployed to Memphis pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).

Mayor Lee Harris of Shelby County (where Memphis is located), as well as a few City of Memphis Council Members and Tennessee State Representatives sued Governor Lee and other state officials challenging the deployment of Tennessee's National Guard. (18) The local politicians asserted that the deployment violated Tennessee's state statutes and Tennessee's State Constitution.

On November 11, 2025, a court in the Chancery Division of Tennessee found that the local politicians demonstrated a likelihood of success in demonstrating the deployment of the National Guard violated Tennessee statutory law because 1) there was no “grave emergency” or “disaster” in fighting “ongoing criminal activity” (or rebellion) (in violation of Tenn. Code Ann.§ 58-1-06(a)); and 2) no governing body of the City of Memphis, Shelby County or State general assembly passed any legislation or made any declaration that there was a “breakdown of law and order, a grievous breach of the peace, a riot, resistance of process of the state, or disaster, or imminent danger thereof,” (in violation of § Tenn. Code Ann. 58-1-06(c)), let alone requested the invocation of the National Guard. The court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining Governor Lee and state officials from further implementation, activation and deployment of the Tennessee National Guard for the purposes of supporting the Memphis Safety Task Force under the Title 32 status, but stayed its decisions to allow for an appeal. The Tennessee Attorney General is appealing the trial court’s decision.

What is Happening in the District of Columbia

Currently, D.C. is occupied by National Guard units from other states. D.C. is different because it is not a state, so the PCA does not apply, and National Guard units from other States can be deployed to D.C. There is also a Home Rule statute that allows the President to demand the assistance of the D.C. Metropolitan Police and to deploy the D.C. National Guard. D.C. is currently challenging the deployment and federalization of National Guard units from other states in federal court. A District Court in D.C issued a preliminary injunction that was stayed (halted) by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal. The legality of the deployment of the National Guard is on appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unresolved Issues Pertaining to State National Guard Units:

  • A State Governor has not deployed that State’s National Guard to another State without the consent of the receiving Governor. It would violate state sovereignty and be subject to litigation.

  • An unresolved question is whether the President can commandeer a State’s National Guard when a Governor has actively deployed that National Guard.  

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the President can order one State’s National Guard units to deploy to another state and engage in civilian law enforcement pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).

What is Martial Law?

The term “martial law” has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency. Under martial law, a military commander has the authority to make and enforce laws and suspend existing laws. By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law. Additionally, martial law declarations are subject to judicial review.

What You Can Do to Prepare

There is so much to learn from organizers in other cities throughout the world who have deterred or experienced military occupations. They have organized mass demonstrations and public gatherings; distributed Know Your Rights (KYR) materials and conducted massive KYR trainings; established mutual aid hubs and networks; created rapid response teams to document and spread news of immigration/troop sighting to ensure people’s safety; demanded elected officials speak out and pass city/county legislation/resolutions condemning troops in cities (ACLU’s Firewall for Freedom: Keep the Military Out of Domestic Law Enforcement); demanded elected officials issue executive orders precluding local law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities and military troops (see Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Executive Orders below) and more. 

Download your free National Guard resource today.

Resources for Occupied Cities: including KYR Materials

Acknowledgements

This abbreviated explainer of National Guard law relied in part on the analysis of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and Brennan Center for Justice.

Footnotes

  1.  The Specific Statutes:

    1. The President considers that “unlawful obstructions,... or rebellion” creates such hindrances that it is “impracticable to enforce the laws” of the U.S. in a state “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” (10 USC § 252, “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority”).

    2. The President shall take measures he considers “necessary to suppress,” any insurrection, domestic violence,. . ” if it so hinders the execution of the laws,” and people are deprived of a right, privilege, immunity or protection and state officials are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right privilege, immunity or protection. (10 USC § 253(1) “Interference with State and Federal Law”).

      • This is how Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy deployed troops to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board of Education.

    3. The President shall take measures he considers “necessary to suppress,” any insurrection, domestic violence,. . ,” if it “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” (10 USC § 253(2): “Interference with State and Federal Law”).

  2. Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Circ. 2025). In this appeal, Newsom/State of CA conceded there was no violation of the PCA if TF51 were used to protect federal property. 

  3.  Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727 (9th Cir.).

  4. Newsom v. Trump, 25-cv-04870-CRB (9.2.25).

  5. The Court ruled the PCA applies to § 12406 despite the Trump administration’s arguments and rejected the Trump’s administration’s assertion of inherent Constitutional power to deploy military troops domestically. Moreover, the Court found that the Trump administration’s rationale for deploying troops in LA “ostensibly to quell a rebellion” were unjustifiable. The Court found there was no rebellion, and civilian law enforcement was not unable to respond to protests and enforce the law.

  6.  President Trump issued an executive order declaring “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorism organization.”

  7.  Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2025)

  8. District Court Judge Karen Immergut in ruling stated: “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power - to the detriment of this nation.”

    • The Trump administration appealed the first TRO, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay to the part of the order that prevented the Trump administration from federalizing the Oregon National Guard, but the part of the order preventing the deployment of guard units was left in place. Later, Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc review of the appeal allowing for the Chief Judge and 10 other Judges from the Ninth Circuit to rule on this appeal. This appeal, Oregon v. Trump, 26-6269, was later consolidated with the appeal of the permanent injunction entered by the District Court in Oregon v. Trump, 25-7194. 

  9.  On October 5, 2025, Secretary Hegseth also issued an order federalizing 400 members of the Texas National Guard who were transferred to Oregon, Illinois and possibly other states. 

  10.  Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-1756-IM (D. Or. Nov. 7, 2025).

  11. Major General Rieger, the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified that he had no experience with the national guard deployments pursuant to Title 10 status (including 10 USC § 12406). The trial testimony also revealed that the federal officers assigned to guard the ICE facility were not consulted and did not request the assistance of National Guard units.

  12. A U.S. District Court denied the Trump administration’s challenge to Illinois’ sanctuary policies (e.g., the Illinois Trust Act) finding it was protected by the 10th Amendment.

  13. District Court Judge April Perry of the Northern District of Illinois found that federal government’s declarations regarding protestors alleged violence appeared to lack an appreciation for the wide spectrum of activities between questioning or criticizing actions of federal officials/government from those obstructing or engaging in violence against federal officials. The Court also noted a separate District Court Judge entered a TRO against the use of chemical agents, violence and other constitutional violations against DHS officials; a federal grand jury refused to indict three people arrested and charged by federal law enforcement officials indicating there was no probable cause a crime occurred (grand juries in D.C. have also refused to indict several arrested and charged); and that the federal government falsely claimed that Federal Protection Services (FPS) requested National Guard units to protect the federal courthouse in the Northern District of Illinois.

  14.  The Seventh Circuit stated: “Political opposition is not a rebellion. A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate a myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm as the law currently allows. Nor does a protest become a rebellion merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants in the protest.” (Slip. op. p.14).

  15.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett, Brown Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor signed on to the majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but wrote a separate concurrence. Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, with Justice Thomas joining Justice Alito’s dissent and Justice Gorsuch writing a separate dissent.

  16. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether the circumstances on the ground constituted a rebellion allowing the use of troops pursuant to 10 USC § 12406(2). Further, the Court did not address the reviewability of the President’s justifications to deploy under 10 USC § 12406(3) (meaning whether there was an inability to execute the laws, to what extent, and who can make that ultimate determination: the President or the Courts).

  17. On September 5, 2005, President Trump ordered that the Department of Defense be renamed to the Department War making Secretary Hegesth the Secretary of War. 

  18. Mayor Harris objected to the use of the National Guard, in part, because it was likely to increase costs and financially strain Shebly County resources given a likely increase in arrests, detentions and criminal court operations, despite the federal government paying for the Tennessee National Guard deployment.

Contact us.

Do you have questions about the deployment of National Guard units in your state? Are you looking for resources, legal connections, or ways to get involved in community defense? Use this form to reach out.