A Nashville judge has ordered Gov. Bill Lee to halt the National Guard deployment in Memphis, ruling that the governor violated Tennessee law when he unilaterally sent troops into the city without legislative approval or a local request — a sweeping rebuke that immediately sent political shockwaves through the state.

In a sharply written 37-page order issued late Monday, Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal granted a temporary injunction blocking further Guard activity under what she called an “unlawful deployment.”

She concluded that neither the Tennessee Constitution nor state statute grants the governor the unilateral authority to use military forces for civilian policing — the argument made for weeks by the seven elected officials who sued Lee.

But as the ink dried on the ruling, a new question surfaced — one with profound constitutional stakes: If Gov. Lee broke the law to send the Guard into Memphis, will he obey the law now that a judge has ordered him to pull them out?

That question hangs over the state’s political landscape as the governor weighs whether to comply, appeal, or — as some fear — push deeper into confrontation with the courts.

Moskal’s ruling is both sweeping and plainspoken. Her most forceful conclusion: “The governor did not follow the law.” She found that:

  • Tennessee law requires a request from a local government before the Guard can be used for civilian law enforcement in non-emergency circumstances.
  • There was no rebellion or invasion that could trigger unilateral gubernatorial authority.
  • The General Assembly — not the governor — must approve the use of the state militia for policing Tennessee citizens.

That ruling immediately vindicated the central argument of the plaintiffs — Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, Memphis City Councilman JB Smiley Jr., State Rep. G.A. Hardaway, State Rep. Gabby Salinas, State Sen. Jeff Yarbro, and County Commissioners Henri E. Brooks and Erika Sugarmon. The injunction does not take effect immediately; Lee has five days to appeal. 

But the ruling itself is historic — the first time a Tennessee court has blocked a governor’s use of the National Guard on constitutional grounds in more than a century.

Plaintiffs reacted swiftly, praising the ruling as a win for the rule of law — and for Memphis.

“Pleased that the Court has issued a favorable decision on our motion for a temporary injunction,” Mayor Harris wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “This is a positive step toward ensuring the rule of law applies to everyone — including everyday Tennesseans and even the Governor.”

“The court has granted our temporary injunction.” Smiley wrote on Facebook. “The National Guard is being ordered to leave Memphis. I will never stop fighting for the people of our county and the rule of law.”

NewsMax commentator Todd Starnes, referring to Harris and Smiley as “Democrat overlords,” wondered on X: “Will the Democrats also demand that the missing children recovered by the task force be returned to the human traffickers?”

“Todd,” Harris responded on X, “if we are going to have a country, we have to have laws and those laws must be respected by everyone, from Governor to everyday Tennessean. What’s the point if our laws aren’t going to be enforced?”

Lee’s office has not yet issued a statement, as of Tuesday at 12 p.m. But on Oct. 29, Lee indicated expanding the deployment, not reducing it, telling reporters: “We will continue to deploy additional resources where needed.”

 Memphis Mayor Paul Young, not included in the suit, confirmed that his office had been informed that more troops were on the way. 

Hardaway, also a plaintiff, called Lee’s announcement of more troops coming to Memphis  “arrogance” in an interview with the TSD.

“He’s doubling down on the deployment — even while the matter was still in court,” Hardaway said. “It shows he has no intention of bringing this to the Legislature.”

When asked whether he believed the governor would honor the court order, Hardaway was frank: Like anyone else, defiance of a court order is legally considered ‘contempt of court.’

“It might look like a fine. It might look like incarceration. I don’t know,” Hardaway said. “But the governor has got to do his job. I would hope he respects his own oath of office.”

He added that Tennessee’s Republican legislators — who campaign on “law and order” — must now decide whether those words apply to the governor, too.

“Now is as good a time as any for them to show it,” Hardaway said.

Harris has repeatedly stated that the Guard’s presence had caused a surge of low-level arrests and court congestion — something Judge Moskal referenced in her analysis.

Harris showed data demonstrating:

  • Bookings nearly doubled for the week of Oct. 6–12 compared to the same week last year
  • Misdemeanor arrests rose sharply, suggesting an expanding dragnet
  • Bail hearings doubled, straining judicial capacity
  • Overcrowding worsened at the already-stressed 201 Poplar complex

“These are quantifiable local consequences,” Harris said. “This is not theoretical.”

Hardaway echoed the point: “(The deployment is) wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. For what? To address the symptoms of crime — not the causes.”

Hardaway argued that the same funds could have supported preventive measures like educational opportunities, mental health care, workforce development, entrepreneurship and re-entry programs.

“When people have real options, they don’t choose crime,” he said. “Military occupation offers no long-term solutions.”

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, (D-TN), whose district includes Memphis,  issued a statement in support of the judge’s ruling.

“I have said repeatedly that I believe the coordinated surge in federal and state law enforcement to address crime in Memphis is useful and having a positive impact, but there is no need for National Guard troops. Deploying the military to the streets of our city is unnecessary, counterproductive, and expensive,” Cohen stated. 

“I appreciate Chancellor Moskal’s well-reasoned decision,” Cohen added. “I look forward to the ruling being upheld on appeal and to returning to the proven, civilian-led public safety strategies that actually help reduce crime and strengthen trust in our communities.”

If Gov. Lee appeals, the case will move to the Tennessee Court of Appeals — and potentially the Tennessee Supreme Court. Hardaway believes the ruling is on firm enough legal ground to survive scrutiny.

“Look at how long she took to write it. Look at the detail,” Hardaway said of the 37-page document. “It will be very difficult for any appeals court to overturn it.”

But even if the courts reaffirm the ruling, the core dilemma remains: What happens if a governor simply refuses to comply?

That question landed with unmistakable weight at an October press conference announcing the lawsuit, when the Tri-State Defender asked the plaintiffs who would enforce a ruling against the governor. Democracy Forward attorney Yanis Rodríguez paused before answering.

“This is something we are thinking very deeply about,” she said.