Judge bans National Guard from Chicago indefinitely while awaiting Supreme Court decision

CHICAGO (AP) — National Guard troops won’t be deployed to the Chicago area anytime soon unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in because a judge on Wednesday extended her temporary restraining order indefinitely.

Elsewhere in the country, it will be at least days before the Guard is deployed to Portland, Oregon, and federal appeals judges are considering whether hundreds of California National Guard members should remain under federal control.

Read more: Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops reignites a 200-year-old constitutional debate

President Donald Trump’s campaign to send the military into Democratic-run cities, despite fierce resistance from mayors and governors, has unleashed a storm of lawsuits and overlapping lawsuits.

Here’s what to know about legal efforts to prevent or deploy the National Guard to various cities:

A judge weighs in on guard in Chicago while awaiting a Supreme Court decision

U.S. District Judge April Perry on Wednesday blocked the deployment of Guard troops to the Chicago area until the case is decided either in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Perry had already banned publication for two weeks through a temporary restraining order, or TRO.

Lawyers representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the order, but stressed that they would continue to push for an emergency order from the Supreme Court allowing the spread.

The Attorney General, Dr. John Sawyer said in a Supreme Court filing Tuesday: “Every day this inappropriate TRO remains in effect imposes grave and irreparable harm on the executive branch.”

Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois asked the Supreme Court to continue the publication ban, calling it a “dramatic step.”

The Guard’s deployment in Portland is also in limbo

An appeals court said Monday that Trump could take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, but a separate court order still prevents him from actually deploying them.

US District Judge Karen Emmergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month. One of them blocked Trump from calling in Oregon state troopers so he could send them to Portland. The other prevented 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 panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration.

However, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, so no troops may be deployed immediately. A hearing has been scheduled for Friday on the administration’s request to rescind the order. Meanwhile, the state is asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider Monday’s ruling.

California legal battle goes before appeals panel

A panel on the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena on Wednesday heard arguments related to Trump’s deployment of Guard troops in Los Angeles.

A district court found that the administration violated federal law when it sent troops to Los Angeles in June after protests over Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown.

Justice Charles Breyer handed California Gov. Gavin Newsom a victory on June 13 when he ordered control of California Guard members returned to the state. But in an emergency ruling, an appeals court panel sided with the Trump administration, suspending Breyer’s decision and allowing the troops to remain in federal hands as the lawsuit develops.

The appeals court is now considering whether to overturn Breyer’s June order.

The same three-judge panel is also handling the Trump administration’s appeal of Breyer’s Sept. 2 ruling, which found that the president violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting military enforcement of domestic laws.

The groups aim to stop the deployment of the Guard in the capital

In Charleston, West Virginia, a state court hearing is scheduled for Friday in a lawsuit filed by two groups seeking to block the deployment of the state National Guard to Washington, D.C. More than 300 Guard members have been in the nation’s capital to support Trump’s initiative since late August.

A separate federal court hearing is focusing on a request from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb for a temporary injunction to stop the deployment of more than 2,000 guards.

Forty-five states have filed in the case, with 23 states supporting the D.C. department’s actions and 22 states supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

Republican governors from several states also sent units to the capital. Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 soldiers remain. Several states told The Associated Press they will bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.

Democrats file lawsuit to stop deployment of Guard in Memphis

In Tennessee, Democratic elected officials filed a lawsuit last Friday to stop the Guard’s continued deployment in Memphis. They said Republican Gov. Bill Lee, at Trump’s behest, violated the state constitution, which says the Guard can be called during “rebellion or invasion” — but only with the blessing of state lawmakers.

Since their arrival on October 10, the troops have patrolled downtown Memphis, including near the famous pyramid, wearing camouflage uniforms and protective vests labeled “Military Police,” with weapons in holsters. Officials said the Guard members did not have the authority to arrest.

Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., and Olga R. Rodriguez in San Francisco, Adrian Sainz in Memphis, and John Raby in Charleston, West Virginia.