In a dramatic, last-minute intervention, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt the Trump administration a stinging legal loss, issuing a temporary stay that blocks Donald Trump’s ability to deploy federalized National Guard troops onto the streets of Portland, Oregon. The decision puts a sudden brake on a “horrific” lower court opinion, escalating a “high-stakes tennis match” over the limits of presidential power that is now raging in federal courts across the nation.

This legal showdown, which one analyst describes as a “dangerous… game,” is not just about one city. It has become a nationwide test of constitutional authority, with active cases and new threats emerging from Chicago to Los Angeles. With the conflict now hurtling toward the Supreme Court, the core of the American legal system is being forced to answer one question: How much power does a president have to deploy military force within his own country, even against the will of local governments?

The battle in Portland has become the central arena for this conflict, and it has been a legal and political whiplash. The saga began with a stunning rebuke from a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump. Judge Karen Immergut, after hearing the administration’s case, issued a restraining order, ruling that there was “no factual basis” for a military deployment. She found that Portland was not “war-ravaged” and that there were no “wild renegade Antifa troops” that had taken over the city.

In a now-infamous line that has come to define the legal struggle, Judge Immergut declared that Donald Trump’s assertions were, quote, “untethered to the facts.” She refused to federalize the Oregon State National Guard and put a stop to the deployment.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration immediately appealed. The case went to a three-judge panel of the same Ninth Circuit. In a decision that shocked legal observers, that panel, led by two Trump appointees, effectively ignored Judge Immergut’s factual findings. They did not care about the “state of play” on the streets of Portland. Instead, their ruling was based on a sweeping interpretation of presidential authority, stating that Donald Trump was “entitled to great deference.” In their view, if the president said Portland was war-torn, the court’s job was to defer, not to fact-check.

This is what makes the latest development so significant. The Attorney General for the state of Oregon, faced with this “horrific decision,” did not back down. She petitioned the full bench of the Ninth Circuit—a process known as an “en banc” review—to rehear the case.

In response, the senior judge overseeing these reviews has just issued a stay. This order puts a “temporary stop” to the three-judge panel’s ruling. As of this moment, the block is back in place. Donald Trump cannot deploy troops to Portland. This stay suggests that the full court is taking the petition extremely seriously and is likely to take up the issue, setting the stage for one of the most significant rulings on presidential power in modern history.

While Portland is the most immediate flashpoint, it is not the only front in this legal war. In Chicago, Illinois, the administration’s attempt to deploy troops was met with an even more resounding defeat. A trial court judge, April Perry, not only blocked the move but explicitly accused the president of “adding fuel to a fire he started.”

The administration appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a unanimous ruling, all three judges—including one appointed by Donald Trump himself—upheld the lower court’s decision, roundly prohibiting the deployment of soldiers onto the streets of Chicago. Having been defeated at both the trial and appellate levels, the administration has now run to its “favorite court of appeals”: the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has been filed, and the entire nation is now waiting to see if the high court will even agree to take it up.

The legal chaos extends to the West Coast. In California, a similar battle has already been fought over the deployment of troops in Los Angeles. While the initial restraining order issues are now “water under the legal bridge,” a far more significant ruling came later. Judge Charles Brier, ruling on the merits of the case—the “meat of the issue”—found definitively that Donald Trump did not have the lawful or constitutional authority to put those soldiers on LA’s streets in the first place. That decision has also been appealed and is currently sitting at the same Ninth Circuit that is now grappling with the Portland case.

With new threats being made to deploy troops in cities like Memphis, and a previous threat against San Francisco being “backed down” for the moment, the administration appears to be probing for weakness, “attempting to abuse presidential power writ large” and intimidate cities nationwide.

This multi-front war, however, may ultimately be “academic.” According to legal analysts, these victories in the trial courts and circuits, while critical, are merely “term papers” and “final exams.” They are “solidifying what the law tells us” and creating a record that what Donald Trump is attempting to do “has no basis in fact” and “violates the Constitution.”

But the final grade will be given by the Supreme Court. The hosts of “The Legal Breakdown” argue that this is where the real danger lies. The 6-3 conservative majority court has, in their view, repeatedly shown a willingness to let Donald Trump “run wild” with “unfettered presidential power.”

The fear is that the Supreme Court will simply toss aside the detailed “term papers” from the lower courts. The analyst, Glenn Kirschner, warns that the high court may simply say, “to hell with all those trial court and appeals court judges.”

The legal theory at play is that presidential power is at its “zenith,” or its highest point, when it comes to “national security issues.” This deference is so strong, Kirschner fears, that the Supreme Court will rubber-stamp any claim the president makes. “If he says Martians have landed and are invading Portland, Oregon, and therefore I need to send the troops in, hey, he’s the president and when you’re the president you get to do it.”

This is the bleak backdrop against which the Ninth Circuit’s new order must be viewed. Kirschner stated he would “put 90 cents of my max $1 bet” on the Supreme Court ultimately allowing Trump to “do what he damn well pleases” in any state he decides is “under attack.”

For now, the Ninth Circuit’s stay is a “stinging loss” for the administration and a crucial, if temporary, victory for the state of Oregon. The “tennis ball of abuse,” as one host described it, has been batted back over the net. But the American people are left watching, wondering who will ultimately win this “dangerous, high-stakes” point: the states and their citizens, or a president determined to test the very limits of his power.