CHICAGO (AP) President Donald Trumps attempts to deploy the military in Democratic-led cities over the objections of mayors and governors has brought a head-spinning array of court challenges and overlapping rulings. As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether to clear the way for the National Guard in Chicago, a federal appeals court is hearing arguments in California Gov. Gavin Newsoms challenge to the deployment of troops in Los Angeles. Guard troops could also soon be on the ground in Portland, Oregon, pending legal developments there. Here are some things to know about legal efforts to block, or deploy, National Guard troops in various cities. Supreme Court ruling to come; federal judge weighs National Guard in Chicago. A federal judge in Chicago already blocked deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area for two weeks. On Wednesday, she'll hold a hearing to consider whether to extend that order but anything she does could be moot if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the meantime. Attorneys representing the Trump administration said in court filings Tuesday that they would agree to possibly extend the block on deployment of troops for 30 days. However, they are also continuing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The Trump administration is pressing for an emergency order from the U.S. Supreme Court that would allow Guard troops to be deployed. Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a Supreme Court filing Tuesday. Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked that the Supreme Court continue to block the deployment to the Chicago area, calling it a dramatic step. National Guard deployment in Portland also in limbo. An appeals court said Monday that Trump could take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, but for now a separate court order blocks him from actually deploying them. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders early this month. One prohibited Trump from calling up the Oregon troops so he could send them to Portland. The other prohibited him from sending any National Guard members to Oregon at all, after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead. The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration. However, Immerguts second order remains in effect, so no troops may immediately be deployed. The case is still before the courts. Legal battle in California goes before appellate panel. A panel of judges with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena is set to hear arguments Wednesday related to Trumps deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. A district court found the Trump administration violated federal law when he sent the troops to Los Angeles in early June after protests to his immigration crackdown. Judge Charles Breyer handed Newsom an early victory in the case on June 13 when he ordered control of National Guard troops back to California. But in an emergency ruling, an appeals court panel sided with the Trump administration, allowing the troops to remain in federal hands as the lawsuit unfolds. The appeals court will weigh whether to vacate Breyers June order. The same three-judge panel is also handling the Trump administrations appeal to a Sept. 2 ruling by Breyer who found the president violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits military enforcement of domestic laws. Groups aim to stop National Guard deployment in D.C. In Charleston, West Virginia, a state court hearing is set for Friday in a lawsuit filed by two groups who want to block the deployment of the state National Guard to Washington, D.C. More than 300 Guard members have been in the nations capital supporting Trumps initiative since late August. Democrats sue to stop National Guard deployment in Memphis. In Tennessee, Democratic elected officials sued last Friday to try to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis. They said Republican Gov. Bill Lee, acting on a request from Trump, violated the state constitution, which says the Guard can be called up during rebellion or invasion but only with the blessing of state lawmakers. Since their arrival on Oct. 10, troops have been patrolling areas of downtown Memphis, including near the iconic Pyramid, wearing fatigues and protective vests that say military police, with guns in holsters. Officials have said Guard members have no arrest power. The legal battles surrounding National Guard deployments continue to unfold across the U.S. This situation raises significant concerns about states' rights and federal authority in the deployment of military personnel domestically. The mixed messages from the courts reveal an ongoing struggle over power dynamics between local governance and federal intervention. As states like Illinois, California, Oregon, and Tennessee find themselves at the forefront of this conflict, the implications for future military deployments in civilian contexts come into sharper focus.