Donald Trump's efforts to deploy troops in Democratic-led cities are facing significant legal challenges in two separate courtrooms on Thursday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments regarding a lower court's decision that blocks the deployment of troops in Portland, Oregon. Simultaneously, a District Judge in Chicago will consider a request to halt the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois.

These hearings mark a pivotal moment in a high-profile legal battle as local governments seek judicial intervention against what some judges have described as a potential overreach of military authority into civilian matters.

In Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry has set a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to provide details about the National Guard's deployment, including their arrival time, locations, and the scope of their activities. Chicago and Illinois state lawyers argue that deploying National Guardsmen could undermine public safety, heighten tensions, and infringe upon state sovereignty. They stated in a court filing, "By design, state and local governments operate closer to the people they serve, allowing them to tailor their activities to their communities’ needs. Federalism is not merely an administrative arrangement; it is a structural protection of liberty."

Meanwhile, in Portland, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit will review whether to lift the order that prevents the deployment of 200 federalized Oregon National Guard members. The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay on Wednesday to maintain the current situation while the lawsuit proceeds. Oregon officials argue that the troop deployment is part of a broader effort to integrate military forces into civilian law enforcement, based on misleading information about conditions in the city.

Oregon's legal team warned, "Defendants’ nearly limitless conception [of the law] would give the President discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary, nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our Nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful Executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our State and the Nation."

A federal judge recently expanded her order to prevent any National Guard troops from entering Portland, concluding that the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent her temporary restraining order by deploying troops from other states. Although this second order has not been formally appealed, it may be addressed during the hearings as the Trump administration contests judicial limitations on the President's authority to deploy the National Guard.

In a filing earlier this week, Trump administration lawyers argued, "Congress did not impose these limits on the President’s authority to federalize the Guard, nor did it authorize the federal courts to second-guess the President’s judgment about when and where to call up the Guard to reinforce the regular forces in response to sustained and widespread violent resistance to federal law enforcement."

Additionally, a group of former Army and Navy secretaries, along with retired four-star admirals and generals, submitted an amicus brief urging caution regarding the National Guard's domestic deployment. They warned that such actions could jeopardize the Guard's primary missions, create safety risks for service members and the public, and politicize the military, which could harm recruitment and morale.

As these legal proceedings unfold, the implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities remain a critical concern.