The lawsuits over President Trump’s 2025 National Guard deployments ended, for the most part, in defeat for the administration. Federal judges in California, Oregon, Illinois, and the District of Columbia all ruled the federalized deployments unlawful, and on December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court refused to let the Illinois deployment proceed. By January 2026, federalized troops had been pulled out of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland. Washington, D.C., where the president directly controls the Guard, remains the exception, and the legal fight there is still live.
What the Lawsuits Were About
The deployments began on June 7, 2025, when President Trump signed a memorandum invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize at least 2,000 National Guard members and send them to Los Angeles County in response to protests against federal immigration raids.1The White House. Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions The memorandum called the protests a “form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” and authorized a 60-day deployment. Troops followed in Chicago, Portland, Washington, D.C., and Memphis.
Section 12406, originally passed in 1903, lets the president call Guard members into federal service to stop an invasion, combat a rebellion, or execute the laws of the United States.2SCOTUSblog. The Presidents Power to Deploy Troops Domestically an Explainer It is a narrower authority than the Insurrection Act, which would have given the administration broader power to use troops for domestic law enforcement free from the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, generally prohibits federal military forces from engaging in civilian policing.
That distinction became the heart of the litigation. Troops federalized under Title 10 are effectively active-duty soldiers subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. Troops operating under Title 32 remain under the governor’s command while receiving federal funding and are not bound by the same restrictions.3Democracy Docket. Trump Military Deployments Democratic Led Cities Legal Fight The administration used Title 10 federalization for Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, and Title 32 agreements for Washington, D.C., and Memphis. To justify using federalized troops for operations that looked like law enforcement, the administration advanced what critics called a “protective power” theory, arguing that using troops to protect federal personnel and property did not amount to law enforcement and so did not violate Posse Comitatus.
Before June 2025, § 12406 had never been invoked without the consent of a state’s governor.4CalMatters. Trump National Guard Los Angeles Ruling California, Oregon, Illinois, and D.C. all argued it could not be invoked that way now.
California: Newsom v. Trump
Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to sue the day after federal troops began arriving in Los Angeles. The case, Newsom v. Trump, went before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. After trial in September 2025, Judge Breyer ruled that the deployment violated federal law.5PBS NewsHour. Judge Orders Trump to End National Guard Troop Deployment in Los Angeles He issued a preliminary injunction on December 10, 2025, ordering the administration to end the deployment and return control of the troops to the state.
The Ninth Circuit initially granted a stay allowing the deployment to continue during appeal, but on December 31, 2025, the appeals court ordered the administration to return the roughly 300 remaining California Guard members to the governor’s control. The federal government withdrew its request to maintain control a day earlier.6The New York Times. Trump National Guard California Newsom Newsom said the ruling confirmed what the state had argued from the start: “We’ve said all along the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal. We welcome our California National Guard service members back to state service.”
A second California suit followed when the administration tried to redirect 300 California Guard members already federalized for the LA operation to Portland after a federal judge there blocked an Oregon deployment.7Governor of California. Governor Newsom to Sue Urges Americans to Speak Out on Trumps Breathtaking Abuse of Power
Oregon and Portland
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut in Portland issued two temporary restraining orders in early October 2025, blocking both the federalization of the Oregon Guard and the relocation of out-of-state Guard units into the state.8NPR. Trump National Guard Chicago Portland Illinois Oregon Pritzker
On November 7, 2025, Judge Immergut issued a permanent injunction. In a 106-page opinion, she concluded that the president “did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard” and that while violent protests had occurred in June, subsequent activity was “predominately peaceful.”9OPB. Portland Oregon National Guard Trump Politics Karin Immergut
Illinois and Chicago
Illinois and the city of Chicago filed suit on October 6, 2025. Three days later, U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order barring federalization and deployment of the Guard within the state.10SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Rejects Trumps Effort to Deploy National Guard in Illinois On October 16, the Seventh Circuit upheld the order, ruling that the immigration protests did not constitute a “danger of rebellion” and that there was “insufficient evidence” they impeded federal law enforcement. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
Washington, D.C.: District v. Trump
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed District v. Trump on September 4, 2025. The complaint argued that the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, deprived the District of self-governance under the Home Rule Act, and bypassed requirements for the mayor to request assistance.11Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Attorney General Schwalb Sues to End Illegal National Guard Deployment
On November 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled the deployment unlawful, finding that the District’s sovereignty was “irreparably harmed” by the federal action, and granted a preliminary injunction. She paused enforcement until December 11 to allow time for an appeal.12NPR. DC Troops Deployment Blocked Trump Because the president has direct command of the D.C. Guard, the legal posture there is different from the state cases, and the litigation continues.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Trump v. Illinois
The Illinois case reached the Supreme Court as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Illinois, et al. On December 23, 2025, the Court denied the government’s application for a stay in an unsigned order, effectively upholding the lower courts’ bar on the deployment.13Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443
The ruling turned on a specific phrase in 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The statute allows the president to federalize the Guard when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The Court concluded that “regular forces” refers to the regular U.S. military, meaning the president must show he cannot enforce federal law with the military itself before calling up the Guard. The government had not made that showing. Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the denial on narrower grounds, finding simply that the president had not made the statutory determination that he was “unable” with regular forces to execute the law. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.10SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Rejects Trumps Effort to Deploy National Guard in Illinois
The decision cast immediate doubt on the legality of the deployments in every other city. By December 31, the administration announced it would drop its push for Guard deployments in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.14NPR. Chicago Fights Trump Deployment of National Guard Troops
Civil Liberties Claims in the Lawsuits
The ACLU, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the Rutherford Institute filed briefs in the Los Angeles litigation arguing that the military’s presence violated the First Amendment by chilling political protest, and that the government’s response was disproportionate, holding peaceful demonstrators accountable for sporadic violence by others.15ACLU. ACLU and Partners Urge Appeals Court to Find Trumps Deployment of Military in Los Angeles Unlawful
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, called the initial LA deployment “unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power” that “recklessly undermined our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.”16ACLU. ACLU Reacts to Presidents Federalizing National Guard Troops in Response to Protests Shamsi warned that the presidential memorandum lacked geographic or time limitations, amounting to a “blank check” to deploy troops wherever protests occurred.17NPR. Los Angeles National Guard Trump Legal Question
In parallel, the ACLU and the MacArthur Justice Center documented a pattern of federal agents threatening, surveilling, and detaining people who recorded immigration enforcement activities on camera, and filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking transparency about those practices.16ACLU. ACLU Reacts to Presidents Federalizing National Guard Troops in Response to Protests An Illinois Accountability Commission later reported that Operation Midway Blitz in the Chicago area produced an estimated 3,900 arrests, roughly 85 percent of them of people with no criminal convictions, and documented over 500 “destabilizing actions,” including home intrusions, the use of unmarked vehicles, and chemical agents deployed on more than 60 occasions.18American Immigration Council. Chicago Illinois Commission Operation Midway Blitz Immigration A federal judge in Los Angeles separately ruled on July 11, 2025, that the Department of Homeland Security had been conducting stops and arrests without probable cause and ordered the agency to stop detentions based solely on race, spoken language, or occupation.19CNN. National Guard LA Protests ICE
Where Things Stand Now
All federalized National Guard troops were withdrawn from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland by January 2026, following the string of court defeats. The pullout was completed without a formal public announcement from the White House or Pentagon.20The Washington Post. National Guard Los Angeles Chicago Portland
Washington, D.C., is a different situation. Because the president exercises direct control over the D.C. National Guard, the legal dynamics are not the same as in the state-based deployments. As of mid-2026, more than 2,500 Guard troops remain deployed throughout the city, patrolling streets, metro stations, parks, and tourist areas at a cost reported to exceed a million dollars a day. The White House has stated there are “no announcements to make” regarding when the deployment might end, and it is expected to continue at least through the end of 2026.21WTTW News. No End in Sight for Their Deployment National Guard Troops Roam Washington The D.C. Attorney General’s legal challenge is still pending.
Memphis sits outside the lawsuit map. Republican Governor Bill Lee cooperated with the federal government, and Guard members operated under state command in Title 32 status rather than being federalized under Title 10. No more than 150 Guard members were expected, and they remained unarmed and in support roles rather than making arrests.22NPR. National Guard Memphis Tennessee Trump
The Price Tag
A Congressional Budget Office analysis released on January 28, 2026, at the request of 11 senators, found that the domestic Guard deployments cost taxpayers at least $496 million in 2025. The breakdown: $223 million in Washington, D.C., $193 million in Los Angeles, $33 million in Memphis, $26 million in Portland, and $21 million in Chicago.23NPR. National Guard Deployments Cost CBO The CBO projected that if deployment levels continued through 2026, total costs would exceed $1.1 billion, with the D.C. operation alone running upwards of $660 million.24Senator Jeff Merkley. CBO Tells Merkley Trumps National Guard Deployment Has Cost Taxpayers Upwards of 589 Million Each additional batch of 1,000 soldiers would cost $18 million to $21 million.