The legal strategies employed by the states hinged on specific case law that limited the president's authority to deploy the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes without the consent of the governors. These arguments centered on interpretations of the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibit the use of the military for civilian law enforcement.

According to the attorneys general involved, the legal teams worked around the clock to prepare filings and arguments, anticipating the administration's legal moves. This involved researching historical precedents, analyzing the scope of presidential authority, and coordinating legal strategies across multiple states.

The use of National Guard troops in these states was initially justified by the Trump administration as necessary to maintain order and protect federal property during periods of heightened social unrest. However, critics argued that the deployments were politically motivated and an overreach of federal power into state affairs.

The Supreme Court's ruling, while not explicitly detailed in the source material, apparently sided with the states' arguments, leading to the withdrawal of the National Guard troops. The specific legal grounds for the ruling remain unclear, but it effectively reinforced the limitations on presidential power regarding the deployment of the National Guard for domestic purposes.

The resolution of this legal battle underscores the ongoing tension between federal and state authority, particularly in times of political polarization and social unrest. The case also highlights the importance of legal preparedness and coordination in challenging executive actions perceived as overreach.