the Seventh Circuit “overstepped its judicial role.” It was “denying the Commander-in-Chief his core powers.”² Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned of “irreparable harm.” The administration was no longer merely justifying federalization of the Illinois Guard—it was demanding deployment. That legal difference, once hair-thin, now governs whether troops can stand post on U.S. city streets.
In Oregon, the air is wetter but no less tense. A week after Broadview’s ruling, a Ninth Circuit motions panel stayed Judge Karin Immergut’s initial TRO against federalization. The panel said the President is likely to prevail on § 12406(3)—the clause about being “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.”³ But deployment itself remains blocked by a second TRO Immergut issued October 5. It’s still in force while the Department of Justice moves to dissolve it. That distinction—between federalizing forces on paper and actually unleashing them on city streets—is what now decides whether a helicopter lands in Portland or stays grounded.
By then, the city had learned to live with the sound. Low rotor wash. An almost constant hum. In the rainy dark, it sounded like the law arriving before it had been written.
Portland didn’t resemble a war zone. PPB’s crowd logs from late September show “twenty or fewer” protesters most nights. A city councilor—an Army veteran—called the helicopters that flew low over her district “terrorizing.” A resident named Zimmerman, himself a Guard member, told OPB: “It’s an intimidation tactic against American citizens. A bullying tactic to create fake news and disruption in a residential neighborhood.”⁴
“When federal officers—unaided by any military forces—were capable, § 12406(3) is not met.”³
As Oregon’s injunction held, Illinois braced for its own next move. Back in Chicago, CPD Superintendent Larry Snelling held a press conference after 29 officers reported chemical exposure—from federal agents’ pepper deployments. Snelling stressed that his department “never stood down.” Then, without irony, he added: “This is still our city.”⁵
That declaration echoed down Michigan Avenue during the “No Kings” march, where Laura, 52, a teacher from Cicero, held a sign reading “I grew up believing in rules” and told WTTW: “Now I’m not sure what’s legal anymore.” Behind her, a woman in a wheelchair rolled past the Art Institute. Her scarf was soaked in vinegar—to break tear gas if it came.
“Chicago is still our city.” — Superintendent Snelling⁵
The court orders in both regions rest on a shared fulcrum: § 12406 isn’t a blank check. To invoke it, the President must show a state is in rebellion, invaded, or that federal laws cannot be enforced without military aid. In Illinois, the evidence pointed the other way—federal laws were being enforced, facilities were open, and DHS press releases touted “record removals” under Operation Midway Blitz. In Oregon, Immergut’s ruling pointed to regular arrests and no evidence that military force was required to backstop the law.
San Francisco, meanwhile, sits in the crosshairs of rhetoric. “We’re heading to San Francisco,” Trump said on Fox. “To make it great again.”⁶ Mayor Daniel Lurie’s answer was colder: “We don’t need the Guard. Crime is down. Police recruitment is up.” Behind the scenes, California filed an amicus brief siding with Illinois at SCOTUS, citing its own experience with federalization and the Guard’s limited usefulness without arrest powers.