Judge agrees to extend block on Guard deployment in Chicago while awaiting Supreme Court ruling
Oct 22, 2025, 9:04 AM | Updated: Oct 23, 2025, 9:06 am
Federal Patrol agents stand outside an ICE processing facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, Ill., Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
(AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
CHICAGO (AP) — President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in Democratic-led cities — over the objections of mayors and governors — have brought a head-spinning array of court challenges and overlapping rulings.
As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether to clear the way for the National Guard in Chicago, a federal appeals court is hearing arguments in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s challenge to the deployment of troops legal developments there.
Here’s what to know about legal efforts to block or deploy the National Guard in various cities.
A federal judge in Chicago already blocked deployment of Guard troops to the Chicago area for two weeks. On Wednesday, Judge April Perry agreed to extend that order by 30 days. But she said each party could discuss the extension further before meeting again at 3 p.m. local time, noting they would not be able to issue another one.
Still, anything she does could be moot if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the meantime.
Attorneys representing the Trump administration said in court filings Tuesday that they would agree to possibly extend the block on deployment for 30 days. However, they are continuing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The Trump administration is pressing for an emergency order that would let Guard troops be deployed.
“Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a Supreme Court filing Tuesday.
Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the Supreme Court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.”
An appeals court said Monday that Trump could take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, but a separate court order still blocks him from actually deploying them.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month. One prohibited Trump from calling up the Oregon troops so he could send them to Portland. The other prohibited him from sending any Guard members to Oregon at all after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.
The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the administration.
However, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, so no troops may immediately be deployed.
The case is still before the courts.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Pasadena is set to hear arguments Wednesday related to Trump’s deployment of Guard troops to Los Angeles.
A district court found the administration violated federal law when it sent troops to Los Angeles in early June after protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Judge Charles Breyer handed Newsom an early victory in the case on June 13 when he ordered control of California’s Guard members back to the state. But in an emergency ruling, an appeals court panel sided with the Trump administration, allowing the troops to remain in federal hands as the lawsuit unfolds.
The appeals court will weigh whether to vacate Breyer’s June order.
The same three-judge panel is also handling the Trump administration’s appeal of a Sept. 2 ruling by Breyer, who found the president violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting military enforcement of domestic laws.
In Charleston, West Virginia, a state court hearing is set for Friday in a lawsuit filed by two groups seeking to block deployment of the state National Guard to Washington, D.C. More than 300 Guard members have been in the nation’s capital supporting Trump’s initiative since late August.
A separate federal court hearing centers on a request by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Scwalb for a temporary injunction to stop the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen.
Forty-five states have entered filings in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions in D.C. and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.
Republican governors from several states also sent units to D.C. Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain in the city. Several states told The Associated Press they would bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.
In Tennessee, Democratic elected officials sued last Friday to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis. They said Republican Gov. Bill Lee, acting on a request from Trump, violated the state constitution, which says the Guard can be called up during “rebellion or invasion” — but only with the blessing of state lawmakers.
Since their arrival on Oct. 10, troops have been patrolling areas of downtown Memphis, including near the iconic Pyramid, wearing fatigues and protective vests that say “military police,” with guns in holsters. Guard members have no arrest power, officials have said.
___
Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., Olga R. Rodríguez in San Francisco, Adrian Sainz in Memphis, and John Raby in Charleston, West Virginia contributed to this report.
