Fact Sheets Published October 21, 2025

Backgrounder: National Guard Deployment Litigation

Issue Areas
  • Public Safety
  • Rule of Law
In This Resource
Introduction

Since June, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard into multiple U.S. cities. Governors normally command their state’s National Guard, but in several instances the president deployed troops into states without the governors’ consent.

President Trump’s deployments began in Los Angeles, when he ordered thousands of California National Guard units to move from state to federal service, and deployed hundreds of U.S. Marines. Since then, the administration has pursued National Guard deployments in Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.

In state service, the National Guard typically assists local authorities in responding to emergencies like natural disasters, at the request of the governor. However, once federalized by Trump, National Guard troops have been deployed primarily in support of immigration enforcement missions.

State leaders have filed multiple lawsuits challenging these deployments.

Key arguments across state cases

The Trump administration’s actions are highly unusual. They have often gone against the advice of state and local leaders who know their communities best and have violated strict legal thresholds that protect state authority and limit how and when the president can federalize the Guard. For the federal government to deploy the military to deal with domestic civilian unrest, officials must meet a high bar.

The law that the administration is relying on to justify federalizing the National Guard over the objections of governors requires evidence of an invasion, a rebellion, or the inability to enforce federal law with regular forces. The administration has tried to claim that certain actions in the respective cities amount to rebellion, or that the military is needed to enforce federal law.

States are challenging the administration’s claims in court. Pointing to actual conditions on the ground, states have argued that the administration does not meet the high bar to justify federalization of state National Guard troops. States also argue that these federalizations of state Guards harm states and infringe on their powers and rights, and that in some instances troops under the president’s control have impermissibly engaged in law enforcement. Local leaders have also challenged National Guard deployments.

Former military leaders have also argued that the armed forces should remain nonpartisan and should only be used rarely in response to civilian disturbances. These deployments, they have argued, put Americans’ trust in the military at risk and are unconstitutional and unjustified.

Key litigation developments

California

June 7: Trump orders “at least 2,000” members of the National Guard into federal service.

June 9: The Department of Defense calls an additional 2,000 members of the California National Guard into federal service for 60 days, along with 700 U.S. Marines. Eventually, 6,000 members of the Guard are federalized.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues the Trump administration to stop the federalization of the California Guard.

June 12: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California court grants Newsom’s request. The Trump administration appeals the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court’s ruling, in effect, temporarily allows the administration’s federalization and deployment to proceed.

June 24: A three-judge panel disagrees with the administration’s primary argument that the president’s decision to federalize California National Guard units is insulated from judicial review. However, the panel rules on a preliminary basis that the administration’s grounds for federalizing the National Guard were sufficient and that the president acted within his authority, allowing the federalization to continue while the appeal is pending. (There is a pending decision over whether a broader panel of judges should reconsider this decision.)

Aug. 8: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth extends the federalization of 300 California National Guard members an additional 90 days. This extends the federalization past the November 2025 elections in California.

Sept. 2: California argues in a new court filing that whatever the merits of federalizing the Guard in June, those conditions did not justify an extension in August. The district court judge pauses this litigation, pending a decision on the prior appeal.

Sept. 2: A district court judge rules that the Trump administration’s use of the California National Guard and the Marines for civilian law enforcement was illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Latest: The Trump administration has appealed the district court’s Sept. 2 decision concerning the Posse Comitatus Act to the Ninth Circuit, and an appellate panel has temporarily paused the lower court’s ruling.

Oral arguments on the appeal about the federalization of the California National Guard, from the June 12 ruling, are scheduled at the Ninth Circuit for Oct. 22. California has stated that they have been informed that Hegseth intends to extend the federalization of the California National Guard a second time to last through January. In addition, as detailed below, the Trump administration has attempted to send federalized California National Guard troops to Oregon and Illinois.

Washington, D.C.

Aug. 11: The president directs the defense secretary to mobilize the District of Columbia National Guard (which reports to the president) into active service until “conditions of law and order have been restored.”

Aug. 25: Trump issues an additional order to create a specialized unit of the D.C. National Guard authorized to enforce federal law. Trump also announces plans to create a “standing National Guard quick reaction force.”

Aug. 16–31: At the president’s request, the governors of Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, and South Dakota send more than 1,300 National Guard troops from their own states into D.C. These troops are not federalized but rather remain under control of their governors. Members of the Guard in D.C. are deputized by the U.S. Marshals to conduct law enforcement and are authorized to carry weapons.

Sept. 4: D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sues the Trump administration to challenge various aspects of the deployment, including the nature of the mission, the command and control, and the legal authorities being used.

Sept. 19: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants D.C.’s request to expedite discovery about the oversight and training of out-of-state National Guard units, following a request made by attorneys for D.C. on Sept. 9.

Sept. 22: The district court announces a one-month timetable for hearings on D.C.’s challenge to the deployment and the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss it.

Oct. 2: The Trump administration seeks to pause legal proceedings due to lack of funding resulting from the federal government shutdown, which the court denies.

The Latest: Briefing will conclude by Oct. 22, and a hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24, after which a federal judge will make a ruling on the motions by D.C. and the administration.

Oregon

Sept. 27: The Trump administration requests that Gov. Tina Kotek mobilize the Oregon National Guard in state status and threatens to federalize the National Guard if she does not do so in 12 hours.

Kotek informs the administration that the National Guard is not needed.

Sept. 28: Hegseth orders the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland officials quickly file a lawsuit seeking to stop the deployment.

Oct. 4: A district court judge blocks the Trump administration’s federalization and deployment effort. The administration appeals the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The administration then orders already-federalized members of the California and Texas National Guards to Portland.

Oct. 5: California Attorney General Rob Bonta joins Rayfield and Portland officials in filing an amended lawsuit to block deployment of California National Guard troops in Oregon.

After a hearing, the same federal judge blocks the administration from deploying any state’s National Guard troops in Oregon.

Oct. 8: A panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit temporarily pauses the Oct. 4 ruling that prohibited federalization of the Oregon National Guard while it considers arguments on the appeal. The panel notes that the administration did not appeal the second order prohibiting deployment of the Guard in Oregon.

Oct. 9: A three-judge panel hears arguments in the administration’s appeal of the Oct. 4 order blocking the federalization of Oregon National Guard troops.

Oct. 15: The district court extends its Oct. 4 and 5 decisions to block both the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard. (The first order is extended 14 days but is stayed; the second order is extended 14 days and remains in force.)

Oct. 20: The Ninth Circuit temporarily lifts the judge’s Oct. 4 order that blocked the Oregon Guard from being federalized. Shortly thereafter, a Ninth Circuit judge requests a vote on whether the appeal should be reheard by a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges. This vote is pending.

The administration asks the district court to dissolve her Oct. 5 order blocking troops from deploying in Oregon, based on the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The Latest: An expedited three-day trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims is scheduled to begin on Oct. 29. Oregon, Portland, and California argue the administration violated federal law by federalizing the Guard to protect the U.S. government against a supposed “rebellion,” or based on a need to do so to enforce federal law. They also argue the administration violated the Tenth Amendment, guaranteeing states’ rights to run local agencies and the National Guard.

Illinois

Oct. 4: The Trump administration requests that Gov. JB Pritzker mobilize 300 Illinois National Guard troops. Trump threatens that if Pritzker does not do so in two hours, he will federalize them. Pritzker refuses, noting that such action is unnecessary.

The president subsequently issues a memorandum federalizing up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, until Pritzker agrees to voluntarily deploy troops. This would allow Pritzker to maintain control of the Illinois Guard, but the federal government would fund the mission.

Oct. 6: Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Chicago officials sue the Trump administration to block the federalization and deployment of the Illinois National Guard. Their suit also challenges the deployment of already-federalized members of the Texas National Guard—or any other federalized National Guard or federal troops—within Illinois.

Later that day, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois declines to block the deployment before the administration has a chance to respond, giving it until Oct. 9 to do so.

Oct. 7: Texas National Guard troops arrive at a Chicago-area military facility.

Oct. 9: After a hearing, the district court judge temporarily blocks the federalization of the Illinois National Guard and deployment of any National Guard troops to Illinois for two weeks. The Trump administration appeals to the Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 11: In a short order, the Seventh Circuit temporarily allows the federalization of the Illinois National Guard to go forward. However, it declines to stop the order prohibiting the deployment of federalized National Guard in Illinois. The court clarifies that the National Guards from other states do not have to leave Illinois.

Oct. 16: A panel of three judges on the Seventh Circuit unanimously denies the administration’s appeal of the Oct. 9 district court order that blocked the deployment of troops. “[T]he facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois,” the judges write.

Oct. 17: The Trump Administration requests an emergency pause of the district court’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court on the “shadow docket.

Oct. 20: Illinois and Chicago respond. A decision from the Supreme Court could come at any time.

The Latest: The district judge’s order will expire on Oct. 24. A hearing will be held on Oct. 22 to decide whether it should be extended. Appeal proceedings before the Seventh Circuit are ongoing.

Key quotes from court decisions

California

On Sept. 2, a federal district judge in San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration is prohibited from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops heretofore deployed in California, to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants, unless and until Defendants satisfy the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception, as defined herein, to the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Illinois

In entering the Oct. 10 order blocking the Illinois federalization and deployment (which is now temporarily, partially stayed), the federal district court judge in Illinois explained:

“While the Court does not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable. Two of Defendants’ declarations refer to arrests made on September 27, 2025 of individuals who were carrying weapons and assaulting federal agents. But neither declaration discloses that federal grand juries have refused to return an indictment against at least three of those individuals, which equates to a finding of a lack of probable cause that any crime occurred. In addition to demonstrating a potential lack of candor by these affiants, it also calls into question their ability to accurately assess the facts… Although this Court was not asked to make any such finding, it does note a troubling trend of Defendants’ declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence. This indicates to the Court both bias and lack of objectivity. The lens through which we view the world changes our perception of the events around us. Law enforcement officers who go into an event expecting “a shitshow” are much more likely to experience one than those who go into the event prepared to de-escalate it. Ultimately, this Court must conclude that Defendants’ declarants’ perceptions are not reliable.”

The district court also explained: “Here, there has been no showing that the civil power has failed. The agitators who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested. The courts are open, and the marshals are ready to see that any sentences of imprisonment are carried out. Resort to the military to execute the laws is not called for.”

Finally, the district court concluded: “To the extent there have been disruptions, they have been of limited duration and swiftly controlled by authorities. Pairing all this with evidence that federal immigration officials have seen huge increases in arrests and deportations, the Court concludes that even under the Ninth Circuit standard, the factual conditions necessary for President Trump to have properly invoked Section 12406(3) simply do not exist.”

Oregon

On Oct. 4, a federal district judge in Oregon wrote: “This case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. The third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States.”

The judge also wrote, quoting a brief on behalf of the state of California and Newsom, that the Trump administration “‘interfere[d] with the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state Governments’ by federalizing state National Guardsmen for federal service when no statutory or constitutional authority permitted their federalization.”

The judge also wrote: “In support of their opposition, Defendants also rely on occurrences of violence elsewhere in the country and the risk that peaceful protests in Portland might escalate into violence ‘at any Moment.’… But violence in a different state and the mere potential for future escalation do not provide a colorable basis to invoke Section 12406(3). To accept Defendants’ arguments would be to render meaningless the extraordinary requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 by allowing the president to federalize one state’s National Guard based on events in a different state or mere speculation about future events. In other words, violence elsewhere cannot support troop deployments here, and concern about hypothetical future conduct does not demonstrate a present inability to execute the laws using nonmilitary federal law enforcement.”

The judge also wrote: “Finally, the president’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith’ or ‘in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance.’”

Resources

States United resources

State press releases

Press coverage