TN Court of Appeals says National Guard can remain deployed in Memphis

The Tennessee Court of Appeals will allow the National Guard to remain in Memphis after a recent court opinion.

In an opinion issued April 28, three Tennessee Court of Appeals judges ruled that the National Guard deployment by Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee in October 2025 can stay because the plaintiffs do not have standing to block the deployment.

The appellate ruling sends the case back to Davidson County Chancery Court for continued litigation, and found the group of Democratic lawmakers bringing the case did not have standing to sue.

According to the written opinion, judges cite a lack of standing from the plaintiffs to bring the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Memphis City Councilman JB Smiley, Jr., Shelby County Commissioners Erika Sugarmon and Henri Brooks, Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, State Reps. GA Hardaway and Gabby Salinas, and State Sen. Jeff Yarbro sued to block the deployment on Oct. 17.

Yarbro is from Nashville and is the only non-Shelby County official listed as a plaintiff.

“Our conclusion is not that no one has standing. It is, instead, that these individuals lack standing,” the opinion said.

The opinion reverses Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal injunction, which temporarily ordered the National Guard be withdrawn from Memphis, issued on Nov. 17, 2025.

On March 5, a panel of three judges from the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard arguments about the constitutionality of Lee’s deployment of the National Guard to Memphis.

The Tennessee Attorney General’s office filed the appeal weeks after Moskal granted a temporary injunction against the National Guard deployment. If that injunction were to go into effect, the guard would be withdrawn from Memphis pending the final ruling in the case.

Three questions were brought by the state to the appeal: whether plaintiffs invoked an available waiver of the government’s immunity (known as sovereign immunity) from being sued, if they have standing and if Lee violated state law in deploying the National Guard to Memphis.

Lack of standing from plaintiffs

The opinion did not rule whether Lee’s deployment of the National Guard to Memphis was legal, but instead held that the individuals who brought the lawsuit do not have proper standing to do so.

Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Andy D. Bennett wrote the opinion of the Court, which Judges Frank Clement Jr. and Jeffrey Usman signed on to. In their opinion, they state that the opinion of the court is not that no one has standing to bring the lawsuit, just that the legislators who did so lack standing.

In essence, the appellate ruling focused on the barrier to entry for suing and not the constitutionality of deploying the National Guard to Memphis.

According to the court, individual state legislators cannot bring an action against the government unless authorized by the Tennessee General Assembly. It also found that Lee’s decision to deploy the National Guard, stripping them of their right to vote on the issue, counted as “diffuse injuries to legislative bodies, not personal injuries of the individual legislators.”

“To the extent that there is a cognizable injury, any injury in not voting upon or debating the deployment of the Tennessee National Guard is shared equally by the other members of the respective legislative bodies. This is problematic for the legislative plaintiffs’ position because, as noted above, ‘individual members lack standing to assert the institutional interests of a legislature,’” the court found.

The same reasoning was applied locally to the members of the Shelby County Commission and Memphis City Council.

As to Harris’ involvement, the court found that any injuries to him or his office would instead be “purported injuries to Shelby County.”

“For example, he notes financial strains upon the county budget stemming from the National Guard’s presence. Mayor Harris is not the county itself, and he does not assert that the Shelby County Charter confers upon him the authority to file lawsuits on behalf of Shelby County. Absent such authority he has no ability to bring suit on behalf of Shelby County. In fact, the plaintiffs expressly indicate in their briefing on appeal that ‘Mayor Harris… is not purporting to proceed on behalf of Shelby County, but rather, is vindicating executive prerogatives that are vested exclusively in his office.’ Accordingly, while injuries to Shelby County could potentially provide a basis for asserting that the county itself has been injured, injuries to the county are not a basis for providing standing for Mayor Harris,” the court wrote.

Despite reversing Moskal’s decision on the temporary injunction, the appellate court said it is possible that someone does have standing to bring the case, just not the ones currently named as plaintiffs.

Brooke Muckerman is the education and children’s issues and politics reporter for The Commercial Appeal. She can be reached at brooke.muckerman@commercialappeal.com.

Lucas Finton covers crime, policing, jails, the courts and criminal justice policy for The Commercial Appeal. He can be reached by phone or email: (901)208-3922 and Lucas.Finton@commercialappeal.com, and followed on X @LucasFinton.