Troops on American streets: the Guard deployments the courts found illegal, from Los Angeles to Chicago

People and organizations

Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, US military (Department of Defense), Federal courts, Trump administration

Places

United States

Evidence label

Primary record — A court filing, ruling, agency document, executive order, inspector general report, official dataset or regulator order that we opened directly. More

What happened

On June 7, 2025, after protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. 12406 to federalize the California National Guard over the governor's objection, and Defense Secretary Hegseth sent in Marines; he did not invoke the Insurrection Act [1]. Eventually 6,000 California Guard members were federalized [6]. At the first briefing, the task force's own officials agreed the Posse Comitatus Act barred the troops from law enforcement; they were then trained that a "constitutional exception" allowed patrols, traffic control and crowd control, and an Army email coached federal agencies to describe requests for troops as "protection" [1]. Troops accompanied ICE on about 75 percent of its Los Angeles operations through mid-July, cordoned a public road for a DEA-FBI raid in Long Beach, and 80 of them took part in a July 7 operation at MacArthur Park where there was no resistance [1].

Deployments followed to Washington, D.C. in August, Portland and Memphis in September and October, and an attempted deployment to Chicago in October [6]. The courts then intervened at every level:

• September 2, 2025: Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Los Angeles deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act and barred troops from arrests, searches, patrols and crowd control, warning that Trump and Hegseth risked "creating a national police force" [1][2].
• October-November 2025: District courts blocked the Oregon and Illinois deployments; the Portland block became permanent after a three-day trial [6][7].
• December 23, 2025: In Trump v. Illinois, the Supreme Court refused 6-3 to let the Chicago deployment proceed, finding Trump likely lacked authority under 12406(3) because "regular forces" means the active-duty military, which the Posse Comitatus Act bars from executing the laws absent an express exception [4].
• December 31-January 1: Trump said he was dropping the Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland deployments "for now" [7][4].
• October 23, 2026: The 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump exceeded his statutory authority and violated the separation of powers in California, finding no evidence of "an armed, organized uprising against the government as a whole," and refused to let the administration withdraw its own appeal to avoid the ruling [3][8].

Why it matters

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 exists to keep the US military out of domestic policing [2]. The record Judge Breyer compiled shows the administration knew that and worked around it, relabeling law enforcement as "protection" and training troops on an exception no court had recognized [1]. The Seventh Circuit put the legal point simply: political opposition is not rebellion [5]. More than 30 former military leaders told the D.C. court the deployments risked the military's nonpartisan reputation, troop morale and Guard readiness [6].

The courts stopped this round. The open question is the next one. Trump promised a return "in a different and stronger form"; the Supreme Court left open whether he could use active-duty troops under claimed inherent authority or invoke the Insurrection Act; and Lawfare's analysis in June 2026 predicted he might do so around the midterm elections, potentially deploying personnel to polling stations [4][5].

The evidence

• Judge Breyer's 2025 opinion, with its findings of fact on training, operations and the "protection" relabeling [1].
• The BBC's report on the ruling and the administration's response [2].
• Just Security's and Lawfare's analyses of the Supreme Court's reasoning and its gaps [4][5].
• States United's dated litigation tracker across five jurisdictions [6].
• The AP on Trump's retreat and the LA Times and California DOJ on the October 2026 appellate ruling [7][3][8].

Response and counterpoints

The administration's position is that the president has inherent authority to protect federal property and personnel, that his judgment about when regular forces cannot execute the laws is not for courts to second-guess, and that violent protests against ICE justified the response [1][5]. The 9th Circuit's own earlier panel had adopted a highly deferential standard that allowed the Los Angeles deployment to proceed for months, and Judge Bennett dissented from the October 2026 ruling [3]. Justice Gorsuch's dissent called for fuller briefing on when the military may constitutionally be used for domestic law enforcement [4]. The Court's order was a stay decision, not a final merits ruling [7].

What remains uncertain

Whether the Insurrection Act could authorize similar deployments has not been decided [4]. The D.C. deployment, which operated under different legal authority, continued into 2026 after the D.C. Circuit paused a lower-court block [6]. Whether the administration seeks Supreme Court review of the October 2026 ruling is not yet reported [3].

Money and method

Troop numbers (6,000 California Guard federalized; 4,000 in the initial order; 200 to Portland; 1,300 to D.C.) are from the litigation record and States United's tracker [6][3]. The 75 percent figure is the district court's finding of fact [1].

Sources cited

1. [1]
   Newsom v. Trump, Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief — US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2025-09-02.

   supports · Opening paragraphs and sections II.B-II.E (June 7, 2025 federalization under 10 U.S.C. 12406 without invoking the Insurrection Act; Marines deployed; Task Force 51 trained that a claimed constitutional exception allowed patrols and crowd control; Army North email coached agencies to use the word 'protection'; troops accompanied ICE on about 75% of operations; 80 troops at MacArthur Park on July 7; 300 still deployed as of Aug. 11 with a 90-day extension; court finds Posse Comitatus Act violated and enjoins) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-01
2. [2]
   Trump's use of National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, judge rules — BBC News, 2025-09-02.

   supports · Paragraphs 1-3, 18-22 (Sept. 2, 2025 ruling: deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act; order bars arrests, searches, patrols, crowd control; Breyer warns of 'a national police force'); paragraphs 13-14 (hundreds of troops in Washington, Chicago next); White House response ('rogue' judge) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-02
3. [3]
   9th Circuit blocks path for Trump to again deploy National Guard without state approval — Los Angeles Times, 2026-10-23.

   supports · Paragraphs 1-4 and 12-18 (Oct. 23, 2026: 9th Circuit rules 2-1 that Trump exceeded statutory authority and violated separation of powers in federalizing 4,000 California Guard; no evidence of an armed, organized uprising; Supreme Court's Dec. 23 ruling that the statute applies only when the regular army is outmatched); paragraphs 5-10 (earlier deferential panel decision had enabled deployments nationwide) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-03
4. [4]
   Trump v. Illinois: What the Supreme Court Decided and What Comes Next — Just Security, 2025-12-24.

   supports · 'Background' and 'The Supreme Court's Majority Ruling' (Dec. 23, 2025: Court denies stay 6-3 in Trump v. Illinois; Trump likely lacked authority under 12406(3); 'regular forces' means the active-duty military; Posse Comitatus bars troops executing laws absent express exception; Kavanaugh concurrence); 'What Options Might Remain' (active-duty troops or the Insurrection Act); editor's note (Trump says he will withdraw from Chicago, LA and Portland but may return 'in a different and stronger form') · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-04
5. [5]
   Presidential Discretion and the Insurrection Act — Lawfare, 2026-06-16.

   supports · Paragraphs 1-5 and 41-47 (Supreme Court majority's reading of 12406(3); Seventh Circuit: political opposition is not rebellion; author predicts possible Insurrection Act invocation around the 2026 midterms, including at polling stations; Court did not decide reviewability) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-05
6. [6]
   Backgrounder: National Guard Deployment Litigation — States United Democracy Center, 2026-01-14.

   supports · Introduction and state sections (deployments to Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Memphis and Washington from June 2025; 6,000 California Guard eventually federalized; Dec. 10 order returning control to California, troops left LA Dec. 15; D.C. Guard mobilized Aug. 11 with 1,300 troops from seven governors; Oregon 200 troops blocked Oct. 4-5 and permanently Nov. 7; Illinois blocked Oct. 9; more than 30 former military leaders' amicus brief) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-06
7. [7]
   Trump forced to retreat on National Guard deployment — Associated Press via RTHK, 2026-01-01.

   supports · Paragraphs 1-9 (Jan. 1, 2026: Trump drops, 'for now,' deployments to Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland after legal obstacles; may return if crime rises; Pritzker: Trump 'lost in court'; Portland deployment permanently blocked after a three-day trial) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-07
8. [8]
   Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Ninth Circuit Ruling Upholding Order Against President Trump's Unlawful and Unconstitutional Federalization of the California National Guard — California Department of Justice, 2026-10-23.

   supports · Paragraphs 1-3 and background (Ninth Circuit affirms order blocking federalization; administration tried to withdraw its own appeal and was refused; Posse Comitatus trial in August 2025 and permanent injunction; October 2025 ruling blocking California troops from Portland; December 2025 preliminary injunction) · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-guard-08