Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's argument to deploy federalized National Guard in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's legal argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The decision limited Trump's authority to use military forces within the United States without explicit congressional authorization or state consent.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump administration's National Guard deployment authority in Chicago — On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that it possessed the power to deploy federalized National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The 6-3 decision blocked the administration's attempt to militarize American cities without state consent.
• Supreme Court rejects Trump's National Guard deployment in Illinois as unlawful — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 preliminary ruling that President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in the Chicago area beginning in October violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The majority held that a president must first attempt to execute laws using regular U.S. military forces and may deploy the National Guard only if unable to do so with regular forces. The Court found the Government failed to identify statutory or constitutional authority permitting military enforcement of laws in Illinois.
• Supreme Court rejected Trump's National Guard deployment for immigration enforcement in Illinois — The Supreme Court rejected Trump's deployment of the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois, ruling that federal law limits use of the National Guard to situations where regular military forces are insufficient. The majority found that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property. Three justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) dissented.
• Supreme Court blocks Trump administration from deploying National Guard in Illinois — The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois as part of his mass immigration crackdown, ruling that the government "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The decision represents a rare judicial check on executive power in the Trump administration.
• Supreme Court Denies Stay in Trump v. Illinois — On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government's request for a stay in the case of Trump v. Illinois. This decision upheld a lower court's order that barred the Trump administration from deploying the federalized National Guard in Illinois for immigration enforcement actions. The case arose after the Trump administration federalized the Texas and Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement in Chicago, which was challenged by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court's denial means the federal government cannot deploy the National Guard in Illinois pending further legal proceedings. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
• US Supreme Court blocks Trump national guard deployment to Chicago — The US Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower court order blocking the deployment of national guard troops to the Chicago area. In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that the government failed to meet the legal burden required to show it could not enforce immigration laws without federal military intervention. The decision upholds a ruling by US District Judge April Perry from October and signals potential impact on similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard members to Los Angeles and ordered that control over California's National Guard be returned to Governor Gavin Newsom. The Trump administration had claimed that protests against immigration enforcement constituted a rebellion, justifying seizure of control over the state's National Guard without Newsom's consent. The ruling reflects a pattern in which courts have found the administration exceeded its legal authority in federalizing state National Guard units.
• Judge blocks Trump administration's federalized national guard deployment in Los Angeles — US District Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, December 11, 2025, ordering the return of approximately 100 remaining California national guard troops to state control. The Trump administration had federalized the guard in June 2025, deploying roughly 4,000 troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration-related protests, over the objection of Governor Gavin Newsom. Breyer rejected the administration's claim that protests constituted a "rebellion" justifying federal takeover, finding the deployment illegal and the rationale no longer valid. The injunction takes effect Monday, December 15, 2025.

Supporting reports

• Stay motion decided — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration's emergency motion to stay a district court order that had blocked the federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. In a 2-1 decision, the panel concluded that the President likely lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) , finding his decision “reflect[ed] a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.'” The majority found that the district court had erred by minimizing evidence of violence in the months before the federalization order was issued and that it placed too much emphasis on Trump's social media remarks, writing that the deployment constituted a “proportionate” and “measured” response by “sending only a minimal number of Guardsmen to restore order around a federal building” and that the decision of how many troops to send “warrants the highest possible deference.” Judge Graber dissented, warning that the ruling “hands the President a blank check to militarize domestic disputes whenever he declares himself dissatisfied with civilian law enforcement.” The stay reinstates the administration's power to deploy the Oregon National Guard while the appeal proceeds.
• Federal appeals court ruled Trump administration can deploy National Guard to Portland — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with deploying National Guard troops to Portland. Two Trump-appointed judges wrote that "Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis" to support the deployment. A Clinton-appointed judge dissented, writing that the decision "is not merely absurd, it erodes core constitutional principles."
• Ninth Circuit judge requests en banc rehearing vote on Trump troop deployment ruling — Hours after the three-judge panel decision, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the case should be reheard by a larger en banc panel of all 29 active judges. This triggered a formal order requiring written briefs from Oregon and Portland (supporting rehearing) and the Trump administration (opposing it) by midnight Wednesday. All 29 judges will then vote on whether to grant the rehearing. The dissenting judge, Susan Graber, had urged vacatur of the panel's decision, and Oregon's governor and attorney general both called for the full court to reverse the ruling.
• Three-judge federal appeals panel lifts block on Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 on October 21 to lift a lower court's injunction blocking Trump's deployment of federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. Trump had ordered the deployment citing federal property protection; Oregon's governor and attorney general challenged it as unlawful. The dissenting judge called the ruling "absurd" and without legal justification. Hours later, a Ninth Circuit judge formally requested a vote on whether the full 29-judge court should rehear the case, triggering a briefing schedule with a Wednesday midnight deadline.
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pauses lifting of Portland national guard block — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday paused the lifting of Judge Immergut's first temporary restraining order blocking deployment of 200 Oregon national guard troops to Portland until the following Tuesday evening. The pause was granted to allow the court time to decide whether to rehear the appeal of that order before a larger 11-judge panel, effectively extending the deployment block for at least four additional days.
• Case update — Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.) 3:25-cv-01756 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied an administrative stay on an earlier order temporarily blocking the administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard while the legal challenge against it proceeds. The ruling temporarily reinstates the district court's order while the full court determines whether to rehear the case en banc.