— A Tennessee judge on Monday issued a temporary injunction blocking the state deployment of National Guard troops in Memphis after a group of state and local elected officials argued Governor Bill Lee exceeded his constitutional authority. The ruling pauses the governor’s order while the court considers the legal challenge and gives the state five days to file an appeal. The decision does not affect a parallel federal task force operating in Memphis, which includes agents from the FBI, DEA and ATF and is supported by at least 150 National Guard personnel. Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal framed the dispute as a legal question over domestic use of state military forces.
Key takeaways
- The injunction was issued on Nov. 17, 2025, by Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal of Davidson County Chancery Court.
- Seven elected state and local officials brought the suit, asserting Governor Bill Lee exceeded constitutional limits on the use of the state militia.
- The court gave Tennessee five days to appeal before the temporary pause takes effect.
- The ruling applies to the state-ordered Guard deployment in Memphis but does not halt a federal task force supported by at least 150 National Guard personnel and federal agents.
- The case is part of a wider national dispute this fall over placements of Guard troops in several cities, with some state leaders (including in Chicago and Portland) opposing deployments.
- The judge noted the legal question centers on whether state military forces may be used for domestic law enforcement duties.
Background
The dispute grew out of requests this fall for expanded federal and state responses to violent crime in several U.S. cities. President Donald J. Trump and federal officials urged deployments to some urban areas; in Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee ordered the state Guard to Memphis after public statements stressing a tougher posture on crime. That chain of events put state executive authority and federal involvement into direct tension with local officials who criticized the move as an overreach.
State law provides governors with command authority over the National Guard when not federally activated, but legal limits apply when military forces are used in domestic policing roles. Historically, courts have treated domestic use of military forces as constitutionally sensitive, balancing public-safety goals against civil-liberties and separation-of-powers concerns. The plaintiffs framed their complaint around those constitutional guardrails, arguing the governor’s deployment crossed lawful bounds.
Main event
On Nov. 17, Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal granted a temporary injunction preventing the immediate continuation of the Guard deployment in Memphis while the court reviews the constitutional claims. The suit was filed by seven elected officials who argued that the governor’s order improperly placed state military forces into a domestic law enforcement role. The judge’s order pauses state-level troop movements tied directly to the governor’s directive, though it left open review on the legal merits.
The opinion underscored a narrow but potent legal question. Moskal wrote that “the power committed to the governor as commander in chief of the Army and militia is not unfettered,” and said the case “raises important questions concerning the use of the state’s military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.” The court set a five-day window for the state to appeal before the injunction takes effect, creating an expedited timeline for appellate review.
The ruling does not disrupt the multiagency federal task force operating in Memphis this fall. Federal agents from the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives remain on the ground, and the task force is being supported by at least 150 Guard troops. Spokeswomen for Gov. Lee and for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti did not immediately respond to requests for comment about next steps.
Analysis & implications
Legally, the case could clarify the boundary between a governor’s authority over the state militia and constitutional protections against militarized domestic policing. If the injunction is upheld on appeal, it may limit governors’ ability to deploy Guard forces for activities that resemble law enforcement without clearer statutory or constitutional authorization. Conversely, a reversal would reinforce broader gubernatorial discretion in responding to local public-safety crises.
Politically, the dispute has national resonance. Deployments this fall became a flashpoint between federal officials seeking visible responses to crime and local leaders who see such moves as politicized or intrusive. The Tennessee ruling may encourage other state or local officials who oppose deployments to pursue state-court challenges, or it could prompt state legislatures to refine statutes that govern domestic uses of the Guard.
Operationally, the injunction creates short-term uncertainty for Memphis policing strategy. Agencies that had coordinated with the state Guard will need to clarify roles with the federal task force and local police, and commanders may have to adjust patrol plans or mission tasks depending on appellate outcomes. The presence of federal agents and supporting Guard troops means some resources will remain, but coordination and command relationships could shift if state forces are limited.
Comparison & data
| City | State governor stance | Guard involvement (noted) |
|---|---|---|
| Memphis, TN | Deployed by Gov. Bill Lee (R); now paused by state court | At least 150 Guard troops supporting federal task force |
| Chicago, IL | Opposed by state/local officials (Democratic leaders pushed back) | Federal interest reported; state-level opposition noted |
| Portland, OR | Opposed by state/local officials (Democratic leaders pushed back) | Federal deployments previously controversial; state resistance reported |
The table summarizes publicly reported stances and known troop support where available. Exact troop counts and operational tasks vary by jurisdiction; Memphis is the only site in this list with a publicly reported, explicit figure tied to the federal-supported task force in media coverage (at least 150 National Guard personnel).
Reactions & quotes
Lawmakers and legal observers framed the ruling as a check on executive power and an important test of constitutional limits.
“The power committed to the governor as commander in chief of the Army and militia is not unfettered.”
Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal, Davidson County Chancery Court
Plaintiffs emphasized the constitutional claim that prompted their filing and the need for judicial review before state troops perform policing functions.
“The governor exceeded his constitutional authority in deploying the state’s military forces for domestic law enforcement,”
Plaintiffs (state and local elected officials)
Unconfirmed
- Whether Tennessee will file an appeal within the five-day window remains unconfirmed; official comment was not yet provided at publication.
- Specific operational orders given to the state Guard in Memphis (for example, arrest authority or direct policing tasks) have not been publicly detailed and remain unclear.
- Any precise timeline for when the court will resolve the broader constitutional claims has not been announced.
Bottom line
The Nov. 17, 2025 ruling in Tennessee is a narrowly tailored judicial pause that raises fundamental questions about when and how state military forces may be used in domestic security operations. It underscores that gubernatorial command over the Guard is legally significant but not unlimited, and it sets the stage for a likely swift appellate review that could define contours of state authority.
Beyond Tennessee, the decision may influence litigation and policy debates in other states facing similar deployments. For Memphis residents and officials, the immediate consequence is operational uncertainty and the need for clearer legal and interagency frameworks for future responses to violent crime.
Sources
- The New York Times — news coverage reporting the court ruling and related facts.