Where do the latest legal battles over Trump’s National Guard deployment stand now?

No National Guard troops are expected to be deployed to Portland, Oregon, for at least several days, following a temporary federal appeals court decision on Friday. Meanwhile, a judge in Washington, D.C., is weighing whether to pull more than 2,000 soldiers from the streets of the nation’s capital.

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

The developments are the latest in a batch of lawsuits and overlapping rulings sparked by Trump’s campaign to send the military into Democratic-run cities despite fierce resistance from mayors and state governors. The deployment of troops remains prohibited in the Chicago area, with all parties waiting to see whether the US Supreme Court will intervene to allow it.

Here’s what to know about the latest legal efforts to block or deploy the Guard in various cities.

Troops in Oregon remain in limbo

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked a decision by a three-judge panel earlier in the week that would have allowed President Donald Trump to deploy 200 National Guard troops to Oregon, ostensibly to protect federal property in Portland.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said it needs until 5 p.m. on Tuesday to decide whether to reconsider the panel’s decision, and the panel’s decision will not take effect until then.

U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, a Trump appointee in Portland, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month — one barring Trump from calling Oregon state troops to Portland and another barring him from sending any Guard members to Oregon at all after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.

A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel stayed the first ruling on Monday, allowing Trump to take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. But the second order remained in effect, preventing him from actually deploying them.

At a hearing on Friday, the Justice Department told Immergut that it must resolve the second order immediately because its justifications are the same as those rejected by the appeals panel in a 2-1 decision on Monday. Oregon’s lawyers disagreed, saying the orders were different and that it should wait to see if the Ninth Circuit would reconsider the panel’s ruling.

A challenge to the forces in Washington, D.C

U.S. District Judge Gia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, heard arguments Friday on District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s request for an order that would remove more than 2,000 Guard members from the streets of Washington. She did not rule from the bench.

In August, Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the region, even though the Justice Department itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the region were on patrol under the command of the Army Secretary. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

Read more: Despite their concern about Trump’s motives, some D.C. residents are uncomfortably supportive of parts of the National Guard deployment

“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these professions are allowed to continue,” lawyers from Schwalb’s office wrote.

Government lawyers said Congress gave the president the authority to control National Guard operations in the capital. They claim Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” that threatens to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in Washington.

Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 soldiers remain present. Several states told The Associated Press they will bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.

The judge continues to hear about West Virginia’s posting

Among the states that sent troops to the region was West Virginia. A civic organization called the West Virginia Citizen’s Action Group says Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 Guard members to support Trump’s efforts there.

The group says that under state law, a governor may deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

“The Governor cannot transform our citizen troopers into a mobile police force available to the whims of federal officials who bypass proper legal channels,” the group’s lawyers, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, wrote in a court document.

Morrissey said West Virginia is “proud to stand with President Trump,” and his office said the troop deployment is permitted under federal law. The state Attorney General’s Office asked Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Richard D. Lindsay to dismiss the case, saying the group was not harmed and lacked the ability to appeal Morrissey’s decision.

Lindsay heard some arguments Friday before continuing the hearing until Nov. 3 to give the state time to focus more on whether Morrissey has the authority to deploy Guard members.

In Chicago, awaiting word from the Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

Associated Press writers Christine Fernando in Chicago, Adrian Saenz in Memphis, and John Raby in Charleston, West Virginia, contributed.