The conflicts over President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois and Oregon hinge on a question as old as the Constitution itself: Where does federal power end and state authority begin?

During a hearing on Friday, lawyers told a judge that National Guard troops sent from Republican-led states had been conducting conduct law enforcement work.

Federal lawyers claimed a surge of 115 federal police were needed over the summer to quell protests, but Oregon alleges fewer than 31 were ever on the ground at any given time.

It's the first time the Supreme Court will decide whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

As court rulings shift “hour by hour,” experts say city officials must build a united front with law enforcement, businesses and communities — before troops arrive.

Experts say immigration agents have more latitude to be destructive than National Guard—with fewer avenues for San Francisco to push back.

Over the objections of local and state officials, armed National Guards members are now appearing in places civilians frequent. They are walking down pedestrian streets in Washington, D.C., and they have patrolled outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Los Angeles and outside a Memphis landmark.

A D.C. man filed a lawsuit stating that 'The Imperial March' is used in his peaceful protests against U.S. President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard members.

The new bill in New York would allow the state attorney general to sue for a court order blocking a guard deployment if another state attempted to send troops without authorization. That wouldn’t include cases where the guard has been formally federalized, according to News 10.