Speaking publicly for the first time since joining a lawsuit against Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s deployment of the National Guard to Memphis, State Sen. Jeff Yarbro didn’t mince words.
“You can’t restore law and order if you’re ignoring the ‘law’ part,” Yarbro said. “The Tennessee Constitution could not be clearer. The governor does not have the unilateral authority to deploy troops to police civilians, and every Republican attorney general for the past four years has agreed.”
With that, Yarbro — a lawyer and one of seven elected officials suing Gov. Bill Lee — distilled a complicated constitutional battle into one sentence. The fight over the National Guard in Memphis, he said, isn’t just a political clash. It’s a question of whether state leaders are willing to follow the state’s own laws.
Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal of the Davidson County Chancery Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on Oct. 17, ruling that they had not demonstrated “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage” if the deployment continued.
The order, however, set a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction for Monday, Nov. 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. CT in Nashville. According to the filing, both sides must submit supporting documents by Oct. 30 at 4:30 p.m.
Wednesday, Oct. 22, during a news conference at the Shelby County Administration Building marked the first time all of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, a coalition of city, county and state leaders, appeared together in public.
Standing with Yarbro were Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, Memphis City Councilman J.B. Smiley Jr., State Reps. G.A. Hardaway and Gabby Salinas, and County Commissioner Henri E. Brooks. County Commissioner Erika Sugarmon, also a plaintiff, was absent.
Each spoke to a version of the same point: Lee’s unilateral action violates both the letter and spirit of Tennessee’s Constitution, which has prohibited governors from using the militia to police civilians for more than 150 years.
“This is a deeply serious issue of historic proportions,” Yarbro said. “The 1870 Constitution was deliberately written to ensure that no Tennessee governor could ever again deploy troops against our own citizens. That’s been settled law for a century and a half.”
Harris, also an attorney, said the legal challenge is about “drawing a bright line” between lawful governance and unchecked power.
“You can’t defend the law while breaking it,” Harris said. “No governor in a free state can just, of his own will, send military personnel into any community and execute laws at his discretion.”
Harris: Illegal deployment has ‘quantifiable local consequences’
Harris opened the briefing with a series of slides showing what he called “quantifiable local consequences” of the National Guard deployment, including a dramatic spike in misdemeanor arrests and bond hearings since the surge of state and federal forces began.
According to data from the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center, total bookings for the week of Oct. 6–12 — the 41st week of the year — nearly doubled compared to the same period in 2024. The number of bail settings followed a similar trajectory, jumping sharply over the same time frame.
Harris also displayed a breakdown showing that misdemeanor arrests now make up a far larger share of new jail bookings than they did a year ago. It’s a sign, he said, that “the dragnet is widening.”
“We’re seeing people being detained for low-level offenses, and that clogs an already overburdened system,” Harris said. “We have limited court capacity, limited jail space and limited staff. When you double bookings in a single week, something else has to give.”
He noted that the spike comes on top of long-standing infrastructure issues at 201 Poplar, where air-conditioning failures and overcrowding have already drawn scrutiny. “This is not theoretical,” Harris said. “We are seeing the impact in real time on our jails, on our courts and on our communities.”
For Harris, the data underscores what he and other local officials have warned for weeks: The deployment is not only unconstitutional but unsustainable.
“These are real costs — fiscal, logistical and human,” he said. “Decisions made hundreds of miles away are showing up on our dockets and in our detention cells. That’s what happens when you bypass the people closest to the problem.”
Democracy Forward joins legal team
The coalition’s attorneys from Democracy Forward framed the case as part of a broader national pattern of what they described as “domestic militarization.”
“What is happening in Memphis is not isolated,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the Washington-based organization representing the plaintiffs. “It is part of a rapidly accelerating autocratic playbook that seeks to normalize the use of military personnel in our cities. It’s unlawful, it’s undemocratic and it’s dangerous.”
Senior Counsel Yanez Rodríguez added that the legal issue isn’t complicated: “No rebellion, no invasion, no deployment. The Constitution is clear.
“Armed soldiers are patrolling neighborhoods under an order that violates the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee law,” she said. “This case is about protecting Memphis and making clear that no leader can use military power to intimidate or silence the people they are supposed to serve.”
Rodriguez en Español: ‘Frightening times to be Latino or person of color’
Switching briefly into Spanish midway through her remarks, Rodríguez addressed Memphis’ Latino residents directly — many of whom have expressed fear and confusion since the arrival of uniformed troops and unmarked law enforcement vehicles in their neighborhoods.
“These are frightening times to be Latino or a person of color in the United States,” she said in Spanish, her comments translated using AI. “People are being judged not by their actions or their character but by the color of their skin and the language they speak.
“Today we are here to defend Black and Latino communities in Memphis against their own governor, who has chosen to weaponize our troops against their neighbors,” she continued. “That is unlawful, and that is why we are here together.”
For State Rep. Gabby Salinas, that anxiety cuts especially deep. A naturalized U.S. citizen, Salinas said she often thinks back to her own civics lessons and the promise of checks and balances she studied before taking her citizenship oath.
“Democracy will not uphold itself,” Salinas said. “If the legislature does not do its job to check the power of the executive branch, we will not have a healthy democracy. Our fight is not only for Memphis, not only for Tennessee — it’s for all Americans.”
Scope of the lawsuit and what it doesn’t cover
Attorneys reiterated that the lawsuit targets only the National Guard, not the broader federal-state “Memphis Safe Task Force” that includes agencies such as the FBI, DEA and ICE.
“We know there are many issues here, but that’s simply not this case,” Rodríguez said. “The complaint focuses on the governor’s unlawful deployment of military forces. That’s where our clients have both standing and duty to act.”
Asked whether other agencies could be challenged later, she said the coalition is “continuing to evaluate additional legal strategies.”
Harris added that the number of Guardsmen rose from 64 to 159 in one week, calling it evidence of “a growing military footprint with no stated end date.”
Understanding “Title 32”
According to an official National Guard Bureau fact sheet, Guard members serving under Title 32 of the U.S. Code remain under the command of their state’s governor but are federally funded and regulated.
This “federal-state” status differs from Title 10, in which troops are placed under direct federal control, or State Active Duty, which is entirely state-funded and managed. In short, Title 32 allows the governor to command federally paid soldiers within state borders.
In spirit, such a provision allows a governor to mobilize troops quickly to deal with a natural disaster to quickly move resources and create supply chains to relief and recovery efforts. The current deployment doesn’t fit that description. But in a statement released to multiple media outlets, a spokesperson for the governor’s office expressed optimism.
“As the commander-in-chief, Gov. Lee has the authority to authorize the Title 32 strategic mission to Memphis,” said Elizabeth Lane Johnson. “Every Memphian deserves to feel safe in their community, and through state, local and federal partnerships, the Memphis Safe Task Force has created a generational opportunity that is already delivering remarkable results to enhance public safety.”
“We are confident the court will uphold the Governor’s constitutional authority,” she concluded.
‘Indefinite’ deployment and lack of oversight
State Rep. G.A. Hardaway warned that Lee has publicly said the Guard could remain in Memphis indefinitely. A notion Hardaway called “alarming.”
“Civilian policing is not their job,” Hardaway said. “We have state-certified officers for that. The governor is breaking the law and blurring the line between civilian and military authority.”
Hardaway also noted that legislators have had no opportunity to debate or approve the mission. “We don’t know the plan, the budget or the strategic goals,” he said. “It’s government by decree.”
The hard question of enforcement
If the phrase ‘Constitutional crisis’ seems too dramatic, ponder this simple question, the last one posed to the plaintiffs at the press conference: If the court rules in their favor . . . who would enforce it?
After all, the very office being challenged — Governor Lee’s — would likely be responsible for compliance. If he’s willing to ignore the law to send troops to Memphis, would he obey a court order to remove them?
After a brief but awkward silence, Rodriguez stepped forward to respond to the question.
“This is another very good question,” she said. “This is something that we would need to work out under the relief of our lawsuit and something we’re thinking very deeply about.”
Perryman added more carefully worded context:
“In many of our (law)suits across the country, not just here in Memphis, we’re in the spirit of having to ask these questions that Americans should not have to ask,” Perryman said. “A question about whether the government, whether it is the governor or the president, would follow court orders.
“And I will just say that we have been able, at Democracy Forward, to secure compliance from the president and the administration with court orders, and we will continue to pursue that here with the governor.”
