There’s a strange thing happening in America right now: the National Guard can be on your city street one week, pulled back by a federal judge the next, then restored by an appeals court the week after that — all without the Supreme Court weighing in on what the Constitution actually allows.
Los Angeles is the biggest example, but it’s hardly the only one. Portland has been stuck in the same limbo. Chicago’s fighting its own version. And governors across the country are quietly asking the same question: At what point did control of their National Guard become optional?
This fight isn’t really about protests or crime waves or even the politics of Donald Trump. It’s about a deeper issue baked into the American system: Who gets to command the Guard when the streets are tense, the crowds are restless, and a president decides he’s had enough?
Traditionally — and tradition ought to count for something — the Guard belongs to the governors. The Constitution says so. State militia, state authority, state control. The federal government may call the Guard up to defend the nation, but it must follow very specific laws to do so. The Insurrection Act. Certain emergency statutes. A defined threshold of necessity.
What we’re seeing in 2025 is a White House testing the boundaries of those laws and a court system trying to figure out whether those boundaries exist at all.
In Los Angeles, the first federal judge said Trump overstepped. He said the Guard had been turned into a domestic police force without any of the legal steps the country has required for 200 years. He ordered the troops back under state control.
But then the Ninth Circuit — the appeals court — said, Not so fast. The judges there took a broader view of presidential power, ruling that the White House may have statutory authority to federalize the Guard even without invoking the Insurrection Act.
And here’s where the country gets stuck.
Lower courts say one thing. Appeals courts say another. Governors say something else entirely. And the Supreme Court — as is its custom — is in no hurry to jump into the political firepit. So the cases pile up. Injunctions are issued. Injunctions are lifted. Legal analyses fill the air like smoke. Meanwhile, the troops keep patrolling.
This is no way to run a republic.
Even people who support Trump’s urban deployments should want clear, durable rules. Presidents come and go. Parties rise and fall. A power you cheer today might be a power you fear tomorrow. Our system was designed specifically to prevent the passions of the moment from rewriting the balance of authority on the fly.
But balance is exactly what’s missing right now.
Governors argue they’ve lost control of their own military forces. Cities complain they’ve become testing grounds for untested legal theories. Civil liberties groups say the Posse Comitatus Act is being stretched beyond recognition. And the administration insists it has the authority to “maintain order,” full stop.
All of them are standing on different floors of the same burning building.
The only institution that can finally settle this is the Supreme Court. And sooner or later — and it ought to be sooner — the justices will have to take one of these cases and give the country a clear answer. Not for Trump. Not for the governors. But for the future.
Because if we don’t know who commands the Guard…
then we don’t really know who commands the streets.
And that’s not a question any democracy should leave hanging.
TIMELINE: The Trump National Guard Cases (2025)
February–March 2025: Initial deployments begin
-
Following several urban unrest events, Trump orders National Guard units into Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and several smaller cities.
-
California and Oregon object immediately, arguing their governors never consented, and Trump hadn’t invoked the required statutes allowing federal takeover of Guard forces.
-
Civil liberties groups file separate lawsuits claiming violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
April 2025: First round of lawsuits filed
The big filings:
-
Newsom v. Trump (California) challenges Trump’s order on constitutional grounds.
-
State of Oregon v. Trump challenges federalization of the Oregon Guard deployed around Portland.
-
Both suits argue Trump cannot use Guard forces for domestic law enforcement without:
-
a proper Insurrection Act declaration,
-
an inability of the state to maintain order, or
-
explicit legal findings — none of which the White House issued.
-
May 2025: First major lower-court rulings
Los Angeles
A federal district judge rules:
-
Trump illegally federalized the California Guard
-
The deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act
-
Guard troops were ordered to perform law-enforcement functions they could not legally carry out
The judge orders the Guard returned to state control.
Portland
A separate federal judge issues a temporary restraining order blocking certain Guard missions in the city:
-
Intelligence gathering
-
Crowd-control operations
-
Detention support
Both rulings stress: Trump used no valid Insurrection Act authority.
June 2025: Chaos — appeals courts step in
June 12 – Ninth Circuit (California case)
-
A three-judge appellate panel reverses the lower-court ruling, saying Trump may have legitimate authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 if he deems federal forces “insufficient.”
-
The Guard can remain under federal control pending further review.
-
This is the first big legal win for Trump on the issue.
June 20 – Ninth Circuit (Oregon case)
-
The same appeals court overturns the Oregon injunction, reasoning similarly:
“The President’s statutory authority is broad in circumstances of domestic unrest.”
These two decisions give Trump temporary legal cover to continue the deployments — but they do not settle the constitutional question.
July 2025: Parallel rulings, new challenges
-
A judge in California again orders the Guard mission in Los Angeles halted, arguing the White House still has not demonstrated lawful grounds.
-
The Justice Department appeals again.
-
The case is described by SCOTUS analysts as “inevitably bound” for the Supreme Court — though SCOTUS itself is not yet involved.
August 2025: Supreme Court declines early review
-
Several emergency requests (from states and civil rights groups) reach the Supreme Court.
-
SCOTUS declines to intervene, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s permissive rulings in place.
-
Crucially, the Court states the issue is “not yet ripe for final disposition.”
Translation: we’re not touching this until the lower courts finish fighting it out.
September–October 2025: Legal landscape shifts again
-
Lawsuits expand as Guard deployments continue into the fall.
-
Judges in Washington state and Illinois issue narrow rulings limiting Guard activities, but not blocking federal control.
-
Meanwhile, appellate courts are increasingly sympathetic to Trump’s reading of executive authority.
In late October, the Ninth Circuit issues a technical decision reinforcing that:
-
The President may federalize Guard units without invoking the Insurrection Act if he justifies it under certain statutory emergency powers.
This becomes the key precedent now shaping the battlefield.
November 2025: Supreme Court once again stays out
-
In its interim term docket, SCOTUS refuses another emergency appeal trying to block the L.A. deployment.
-
Commentators note the Court seems content to let Trump’s authority stand until a clean constitutional challenge reaches them.
December 2025: Where things stand now
The summary as of today:
-
Lower courts: Mixed rulings — some blocking, some limiting deployments.
-
Appeals courts (especially Ninth Circuit): More favorable to Trump; have overturned several lower-court blocks.
-
Supreme Court:
-
Has not reversed anything.
-
Has not endorsed Trump’s deployment power either.
-
Is waiting for a “final, fully developed case” before stepping in.
-
Reality on the ground:
-
Trump’s deployments are legally still in effect in cities like L.A.
-
Governors and civil liberties groups continue to challenge them.
-
The constitutional question — How far can a president go in using the Guard for domestic law enforcement? — remains unresolved.
A true Supreme Court showdown is still looming.