National Guard Deployments Face Legal Challenges in Illinois and Tennessee

Tue Oct 21 2025 10:51:32 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

As National Guard troops prepare to patrol Memphis, a federal judge has blocked troop deployments in Chicago, highlighting ongoing legal and political battles over federal troop mobilization in U.S. cities.

National Guard troops are set to begin patrolling Memphis following support from Tennessee's Republican governor, while a federal judge in Illinois has blocked similar deployments in Chicago for at least two weeks due to a lack of evidence supporting claims of unrest. This contentious situation reflects a broader legal and political conflict surrounding President Trump's plans to send the National Guard to various U.S. cities amidst ongoing debates over crime and federal authority.

National Guard troops were expected to begin patrolling in Memphis following a decision by Tennessee's Republican governor, Bill Lee, to provide additional support across the city. This deployment comes on the heels of a federal judge’s ruling in Illinois that blocks the National Guard's deployment in the Chicago area for at least two weeks, reflecting a broader political and legal battle surrounding the mobilization of troops by the federal government.

The legal dispute has been ignited by President Trump's strategy to send National Guard troops to U.S. cities he claims are experiencing spikes in crime—a notion contested by various statistics. Some judges have ruled that the evidence of imminent unrest required for such military mobilization is not present. U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago indicated that the administration's claims did not substantiate an argument for deployment under the Insurrection Act.

Governor JB Pritzker declared the court's verdict a clear affirmation that there is no credible threat of rebellion in Illinois and insisted that there is no justification for the National Guard's presence in Chicago. This ruling represents a significant political victory for Democratic officials amid ongoing debates about federal overreach into state authority.

In contrast, the situation in Tennessee reflects support for such deployments, with local authorities viewing the Guard's presence as beneficial for community safety and as "additional eyes and ears" in efforts to enhance law enforcement efforts.

The legal wrangling extends beyond Illinois and Tennessee; a federal appeals court also reviewed President Trump’s authority to control Oregon's National Guard units amid significant protests. The opposition points to a wider narrative of state rights contesting federal actions during times of heightened political tension over law enforcement practices and immigration policy.

This complex situation continues to unfold, with significant implications for how federal troops may be utilized domestically and the intersection of local governance with federal law enforcement directives.