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

📌 Key Facts

• On Oct. 5, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops to Portland (later broadened to bar out‑of‑state Guard troops to Oregon); she wrote the president lacked a “colorable basis” to invoke 10 U.S.C. §12406(3), called the determination “untethered to the facts,” and wrote “this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The TRO is set to expire Oct. 18, 2025.
• The White House filed an immediate notice of appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and sought an emergency stay of Judge Immergut’s restraining order the same day.
• Despite the TRO, the Pentagon confirmed movement of federalized California National Guard personnel to Oregon (Pentagon cited about 200; Gov. Gavin Newsom said roughly 101 arrived Saturday night and that 300 had been federalized), and the administration has sought to substitute Texas Guard troops (Texas Gov. Greg Abbott authorized up to ~400; about 200 Texas troops were reported moving toward Chicago).
• Multiple states and cities have sued to block cross‑state Guard deployments: Oregon and California (and the city of Portland) challenged the Oregon mobilization; Illinois and the city of Chicago sued to block Texas and other states’ troops to Chicago (an Illinois judge declined an immediate block but set a hearing); the ACLU of Illinois and media groups also filed suits over federal agents’ actions near the Broadview ICE facility, where several people face federal charges.
• A separate Washington lawsuit highlights the national partisan split over the issue: 23 states filed supporting the Trump administration’s authority while 22 states joined Washington opposing the deployment; oral arguments in that case are scheduled for Oct. 24, 2025, and hundreds of Guard troops remain in the city despite an emergency order having lapsed.
• The administration is relying on an obscure Title 10 provision (cited as Section 12406 / 12‑406) to federalize Guard forces rather than primarily invoking the Insurrection Act; legal experts say using Title 10 in this way is unprecedented, and courts have recently found comparable Guard uses (e.g., in Los Angeles) violated Posse Comitatus principles.
• President Trump publicly criticized Judge Immergut, said he might invoke the Insurrection Act “if people were being killed” and if courts or local officials blocked deployments, and White House aides and allied commentators (including Stephen Miller and some MAGA influencers) urged defiance of judges — while administration spokespeople defended the moves as necessary to protect federal assets and personnel.
• Governors and local officials have pushed back: Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek called the federal actions “an abuse of power,” Gov. Newsom said he plans to sue and celebrated court relief, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and others threatened political measures (including withdrawing from the National Governors Association) — underscoring escalating legal, operational and political consequences of cross‑state Guard mobilizations.

📰 Sources (30)

+ 10 more sources