News
Confused by the legal battles over troop deployments? Here’s what to know
A member of the Texas National Guard stands at an army reserve training facility on October 07, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois.
Scott Olson/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Scott Olson/Getty Images North America
President Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to both Oregon and Illinois are facing a pair of legal litmus tests — including one at the Supreme Court — that could be decided in the coming days.
At the heart of both challenges is whether or not to defer to the president’s assessment that major cities in both places — Portland and Chicago — are lawless and in need of immediate military intervention to protect federal property and immigration officers, despite local leaders and law enforcement saying otherwise. Both deployments were done against the wishes of Democratic state governors, and were quickly temporarily blocked by district courts.
On Monday, a divided panel on the 9th Circuit court of appeals overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland, siding with the Trump administration, however another temporary restraining order remains in place.
That ruling came days after the 7th Circuit court of appeals upheld a similar block from a federal judge in Illinois on the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
Movement in both cases is expected in the coming days, in what has been a dizzying pingpong of legal disputes around Trump’s use of the military domestically in several Democratic-led cities around the country. And while any decision will only impact troop deployment in an individual state, they could impact how courts weigh in on such cases going forward — and embolden the administration, legal experts say.
“This could be a pretty seminal week in terms of the bigger legal fight over domestic deployments,” says Scott R. Anderson, a fellow at the non-partisan Brookings Institution and senior editor of Lawfare.
The 9th Circuit and Portland, Ore.
The 9th Circuit’s decision earlier this week only applies to one of the two temporary restraining orders that U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued this month to block the National Guard deployments — meaning that troops can still not be on the streets in Portland. But the federal government has asked Immergut to remove her second temporary order. A court hearing has been scheduled for Friday to discuss the dissolution of that order.
Karin J. Immergut, nominated to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon, attends a judicial nomination hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee October 24, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
Win McNamee/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images North America
The 9th Circuit is also deciding whether or not to revisit the ruling made earlier this week with a larger group of judges — and that decision could come before Immergut’s deadline.
Trump has said that the 9th Circuit decision has made him feel empowered to send the National Guard to any city where he deems it necessary.
“That was the decision. I can send the National Guard if I see problems,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. In recent days, Trump has renewed an interest in sending troops to San Francisco.
Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University Loyola Law School and an expert in constitutional law, worries the ruling by the 9th Circuit “authorized blindness to facts.”
“It said [Trump] can decide that there’s a war when there’s nothing but bluebirds,” he says, noting that’s likely why an immediate call for a full review was made. “I fully expect a larger group of 9th Circuit judges to say we don’t have to be blind to what’s actually going on in order to give ample deference to the Trump administration.”
The Supreme Court and Chicago
At the same time, the Trump administration has issued an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on whether National Guard troops can be deployed in Illinois, after the 7th Circuit court of appeals upheld a district court’s block.
It’s unknown when, or if, the Supreme Court will issue a decision, although experts expect it in the coming days as well.
The decision, although not precedent-setting, will likely clarify the president’s power to deploy federal military resources — and how deferential the courts should be to his administration’s presentation of facts — but only to a point. Emergency decisions are usually short, without much reasoning provided by the justices, experts say.
“It ends up kind of putting the onus on district and appellate courts to read the tea leaves of those interim orders to inform these much larger questions in very different factual environments, you know, possibly months in the future,” says Chris Mirasola, a national security law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
National Guard troops arrive at an immigration processing and detention facility on October 09, 2025 in Broadview, Illinois.
Scott Olson/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Scott Olson/Getty Images North America
He says that while the emergency decisions from the Supreme Court don’t apply broadly, in recent months, some judges have started to treat them as if they do.
“I think what we’re going to get in at least the medium term is even more confusion than we’ve had so far,” he says.
But just how the Supreme Court might weigh in isn’t clear.
“I think it’s a harder case for the Supreme Court than some people might think, who go in with the assumption the Supreme Court is just naturally inclined toward the administration’s positions on things — and it is in many contexts,” says Anderson of the Brookings Institution.
He says that while it’s standard for courts to be deferential to the president, it’s also standard to believe the facts presented by the local courts.
“That is a tricky, tricky sort of situation here,” Anderson says.
What could this mean for possible deployments going forward?
These two expected decisions will only directly affect Portland or Chicago. But the implications of both – especially something from the Supreme Court – could have ripple effects in future litigation.
Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, says that what’s particularly worrying is that the Department of Justice has been expressly celebrating high arrest counts by law enforcement in places like Chicago, while still saying the military is necessary to help.
“If the bar is so low that the President can use the military at a time when his administration is touting how effective civilian law enforcement is, it becomes hard to imagine a scenario where he couldn’t deploy the military,” she says.
Experts say that these legal challenges are just the beginning of what will surely be a long and winding road through the U.S. court system.
“This is really just the first battle. There are a lot of legal questions that come after this,” Anderson says.
News
Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP
The Supreme Court
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits.
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow. Earlier last month the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map. California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district. Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
News
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.
News
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.
“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.
In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.
“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.
Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.
This story has been updated.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Oregon4 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling