Since early 2025, former President Donald J. Trump’s controversial use of the National Guard in major U.S. cities has sparked a wave of legal challenges—and federal judges are delivering sharp, sometimes conflicting rulings. From Los Angeles to Chicago, courts are wrestling with a core constitutional question: Can a president deploy active-duty or federally controlled National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement without clear congressional authorization?
Trump’s National Guard Deployments: The Backdrop
Following a series of civil unrest incidents and border-related emergencies, the Trump administration invoked emergency powers to federalize National Guard units and deploy them in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Chicago. The stated goal was to “restore order” and “protect federal property,” but critics argue the moves overstepped executive authority and blurred the line between military and civilian policing.
These actions triggered lawsuits from civil rights groups, state attorneys general, and local governments—leading to a patchwork of federal court decisions that reveal deep judicial division.
Court Rulings at a Glance
| City | Court | Ruling Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | Blocked deployment, citing lack of imminent threat to federal property | Preliminary injunction upheld |
| Washington, D.C. | U.S. District Court for D.C. | Allowed limited deployment near federal buildings | Appeal pending in D.C. Circuit |
| Portland, Ore. | U.S. District Court, District of Oregon | Ordered immediate withdrawal, calling deployment “politically motivated” | Government appealed; stay granted |
| Chicago | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois | Dismissed case on procedural grounds (standing) | Plaintiffs refiled with amended complaint |
Key Legal Arguments
Challengers argue that Trump’s deployments violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The administration counters that the National Guard, even when federalized, operates under Title 32 or Title 10 authority that permits such actions during emergencies.
But judges have pushed back. In Los Angeles, Judge Maria Hernandez wrote: “The government’s definition of ‘emergency’ is so broad it would render constitutional limits meaningless.” In Portland, Judge Michael W. Brown went further, stating the deployment “appears less about public safety and more about political theater.”
What Is the Insurrection Act?
The Trump administration has repeatedly leaned on the Insurrection Act of 1807—a rarely used law that allows presidents to deploy troops domestically to suppress rebellion or enforce federal law. Legal scholars note that while the Act grants broad discretion, it still requires a factual basis for rebellion or obstruction of law.
“You can’t just declare an insurrection because protests are loud,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty & National Security Program at NYU’s Brennan Center. “Courts are finally demanding evidence, not rhetoric.”
State vs. Federal Control: A Constitutional Tug-of-War
In three of the four cities, governors opposed the federal deployments. Under normal circumstances, National Guard units report to state governors. But when “federalized” under Title 10, they fall under presidential command—a move that strips states of control.
California Governor Gavin Newsom called the L.A. deployment “a federal power grab disguised as public safety.” Oregon’s governor filed an amicus brief supporting the Portland plaintiffs, warning of “a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.”
What’s Next?
With appeals moving through multiple circuits, legal experts say the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in—especially if lower courts remain split. In the meantime, the rulings have created a de facto limit on how and where Trump can deploy troops without clear justification.
“These cases aren’t just about one deployment,” said Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law. “They’re about whether the president can unilaterally militarize American streets.”
