The deployments, which occurred amidst protests and heightened social media activity from the Trump administration, initially drew significant public attention. However, the legal strategies employed to counter them remained largely out of the spotlight. According to sources within the attorneys general offices, the legal teams worked around the clock to build cases arguing against the federal government's authority to deploy the National Guard in these specific situations.

The legal arguments centered on interpretations of the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, which limit the federal government's ability to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The attorneys general contended that the deployments exceeded the president's constitutional authority and infringed upon states' rights to maintain order within their borders.

"Our strategy was to meticulously examine every legal avenue available to us," stated a representative from the California Attorney General's office, who requested anonymity due to the ongoing sensitivity of the matter. "We focused on demonstrating that the federal government's actions were not only legally questionable but also potentially detrimental to the safety and well-being of our residents."

The Supreme Court's ruling, while not explicitly detailed in its reasoning, effectively sided with the states, leading to the withdrawal of National Guard troops. Legal experts suggest the court likely considered the arguments related to federal overreach and the potential for misuse of military resources in domestic affairs.

The outcome of these legal battles highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state powers, particularly in times of political unrest. It also underscores the importance of legal challenges as a check on executive authority. The attorneys general involved have indicated their commitment to continuing to monitor federal actions and to challenge any future deployments that they believe overstep constitutional boundaries.