Lawsuit over Trump’s National Guard deployments deepens as states split 23–22

📌 Key Facts

• U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut (a Trump appointee) issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, later broadened to bar out‑of‑state Guard deployments to Oregon; she wrote the president lacked a “colorable basis” to invoke §12406(3), saying “this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The TRO was set to expire Oct. 18, 2025, and the White House filed an emergency appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Despite the TRO, the administration federalized and moved Guard members from other states to Oregon to protect federal facilities and personnel (ICE, FPS); reporting on troop counts varied—California and state officials gave different tallies ( Newsom said 300 federalized, later noting 101 arrived with more en route; the Pentagon said about 200 were reassigned)—and Oregon officials said they received no formal notification and called the action an apparent circumvention of the court order.
• The administration also ordered federalized Guard deployments to Chicago (reports cited roughly 300 Illinois Guard personnel and about 200 Texas Guard troops), prompting Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Mayor Brandon Johnson and the ACLU (and other local groups) to sue; a federal judge in Illinois declined to immediately block the deployment but scheduled a hearing and urged the administration to consider pausing.
• The White House cited Title 10 (Section 12406) as statutory authority for federalizing Guard forces rather than immediately invoking the Insurrection Act; President Trump publicly said he might invoke the Insurrection Act if courts or local officials “held us up” and “people were being killed,” a move legal experts (Brennan Center, Brennan Center-affiliated scholars) warned would be extraordinary and legally fraught given the law’s rarity and breadth.
• Interstate and partisan legal fights expanded: in a separate Washington lawsuit over Guard deployments, 23 states filed in support of the Trump administration while 22 states joined Washington opposing the deployment; oral arguments in that case were set for Oct. 24, 2025, and hundreds of Guard troops remained in D.C. despite an emergency order having lapsed.
• Pentagon and Defense Department filings/memos described missions and troop activations (including a memo saying up to 400 Texas Guard personnel were being activated for possible deployment to Oregon, Illinois and elsewhere); governors’ reactions varied—California’s Gavin Newsom and Oregon’s Tina Kotek denounced the moves (Newsom said he would sue; Kotek called it an “abuse of power” and said “Portland is not a warzone”).
• Political rhetoric and pressure escalated: White House aides and allies (including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and some MAGA influencers) publicly attacked judges and urged defiance of court limits, White House spokespeople at times used insulting language toward governors, and DOJ lawyers were pressed in court about whether out‑of‑state federalizations were circumventing TROs.
• Related legal and operational fallout included multiple civil suits and media complaints alleging federal agents used excessive or indiscriminate force at the Broadview ICE facility (with at least seven people charged in connection with Broadview arrests), and planning changes for other Guard assignments (several states planned fall withdrawals of their D.C. contingents while the D.C. Guard was extended through December).

📰 Sources (32)

+ 12 more sources