What Courts Have Said in Challenges to Trump’s National Guard Deployments

President Trump has sent National Guard troops to several American cities, mostly heavily Democratic ones, this year as a way to help protect federal buildings and personnel amid protests against his immigration enforcement tactics and to address what he claims are rampant levels of crime.

Since June, Mr. Trump has sent soldiers — often over the objections of state and local leaders — to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, Memphis and Portland, Ore.

The mobilizations represent a departure from the traditional role of the Guard, a state-based military force whose domestic deployments have historically involved humanitarian assistance. And they have prompted lawsuits across the country, several of them accusing the Trump administration of exceeding its legal authority.

Here’s how courts have landed on those cases so far.

Los Angeles

In June, the Trump administration sent nearly 5,000 troops, from both the National Guard and the U.S. Marine Corps, to the Los Angeles area, citing a need to quell protests over immigration raids. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California filed suit on June 9, accusing Mr. Trump of an “unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources.”

On Sept. 2, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the National Guard troops were being used illegally. He wrote that the Trump administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that makes it illegal to use federal troops for domestic policing in most circumstances.

The ruling barred the federal government from using troops anywhere in California to engage in “arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.”

Mr. Trump has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed to pause the district court’s ruling for now, pending a hearing. In the meantime, the Pentagon has withdrawn most of the troops who were sent to Southern California, and Mr. Newsom has asked the court to send them all home.

Portland, Ore.

State and local leaders in Oregon filed suit against the Trump administration on Sept. 28, after it called 200 Oregon National Guard members into Portland. Mr. Trump called the city “war-ravaged” and cited protests against federal immigration raids.

On Oct. 4, a federal judge blocked the mobilization with a temporary restraining order. The judge, Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court in Oregon, said the president had most likely exceeded his legal authority in calling up the troops. Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, said the protests “were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days — or even weeks — leading up to the president’s directive.”

Mr. Trump then tried to deploy out-of-state National Guard troops to Portland. In response, Judge Immergut broadened her order to cover “the relocation, federalization or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon.”

The federal government appealed Judge Immergut’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Government lawyers argued that the protests in Portland amounted to a “rebellion” and that courts do not have the power to review the president’s decisions about when to deploy the National Guard.

Three judges from the Ninth Circuit ruled on Wednesday that Oregon National Guard members could stay under federal control until a broader legal ruling was issued, though they left in place a temporary order from Judge Immergut that barred the troops from being deployed. At a hearing on Thursday, the panel appeared to take seriously arguments by the administration’s lawyers that deployment would be legal, and they questioned Judge Immergut’s conclusion that a military presence was not needed.

It is not clear when the court will issue a ruling in the case.

Chicago

Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration on Monday over its move to send National Guard troops to the Chicago area. The Department of Homeland Security initially requested the troops, saying they were needed to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the region. At one facility in Broadview, Ill., protests had grown tense in recent weeks as demonstrators tried to block government vehicles from entering and leaving the facility. But after a curfew was imposed on protests earlier this week, the demonstrations have become calmer.

About 200 National Guard troops were brought in from Texas. Earlier in the week, a federal judge declined to immediately block the deployment, setting a hearing in the case for Thursday.

After that hearing, the judge, April M. Perry, temporarily blocked National Guard operations in the area for 14 days. She said that she had “seen no credible evidence that there is a danger of a rebellion in the state of Illinois” and that the deployment of troops would “only add fuel to the fire.”

Judge Perry said a full written opinion was likely to be issued on Friday. The Trump administration is likely to appeal.

Washington

The case in Washington, filed earlier this year by Brian Schwalb, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, is a bit different from others.

The District of Columbia does not have a governor — the official who typically approves the use of federal military forces before they can be sent to a state — and the case and arguments over the deployment of National Guard troops there have largely hinged on the Home Rule Act. That law, from 1973, gives the federal government control of the District of Columbia National Guard, while the district is granted local governance rights, such as giving residents the power to elect their own mayor and a local council.

On Aug. 11, Mr. Trump, citing the Home Rule Act, took control of the District of Columbia police for 30 days and mobilized 800 National Guard troops to address what he called a “crime-infested wasteland” in the nation’s capital.

Mr. Schwalb sued the administration over the takeover, saying its actions had exceeded the law and would “sow chaos” in the police force. The case settled after lengthy negotiations in which the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, agreed to allow the city’s police chief to maintain control of her department’s day-to-day operations while taking orders from the mayor. Ms. Bondi directed the mayor to order the Police Department to help with immigration enforcement.

On Sept. 4, Mr. Schwalb filed suit again, this time over the deployment of the troops, whose numbers peaked at about 2,400. He argued that the deployment without the mayor’s consent had violated the U.S. Constitution and Washington’s autonomy under the Home Rule Act.

Mr. Schwalb asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the deployment. A preliminary hearing for the case is scheduled for Oct. 24.

Memphis

Mr. Trump announced on Sept. 12 that he would send National Guard troops to Memphis, citing concerns about safety in the city. The State of Tennessee, which has a Republican governor, has not filed any legal challenges seeking to block the troops. The soldiers are expected to be deployed in Memphis on Friday.

Shawn Hubler contributed reporting.