The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a setback to President Trump’s effort to deploy National Guard troops to patrol the streets of Chicago and other Democratic-led cities, ruling that the administration has not yet shown it has the legal authority to do so.
In an unsigned order, the court declined to temporarily pause a lower court ruling that blocks the federalization and deployment of hundreds of National Guard members across Illinois. The decision leaves in place a district judge’s order preventing the troops from being deployed while the case continues in the lower courts.
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the order reads.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The ruling marks the first time the high court has weighed in on the legal battle surrounding Trump’s aggressive use of the National Guard on U.S. soil, an issue that has sparked multiple lawsuits as the administration pushes to send troops into cities where protests have focused on federal immigration facilities.
Background of the dispute
The case stems from Trump’s decision to invoke Title 10 of federal law, which allows the president to place National Guard troops under federal control in limited circumstances. The administration argues the move is necessary to protect federal personnel and property, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, amid what it describes as escalating violence and resistance to federal immigration enforcement.
Illinois and Chicago officials challenged the move earlier this month, arguing that the deployment would violate constitutional limits on the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.
U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking both the federalization of the Illinois National Guard and the deployment of troops. After both sides agreed, she extended the order indefinitely, pending a final ruling or intervention by a higher court.
An appeals court later crafted a middle-ground approach, lifting the portion of Perry’s order that barred federalization of the troops but keeping the prohibition on their deployment. Illinois and Chicago officials urged the Supreme Court to leave that compromise in place.
They argued that the appeals court decision “both safeguards the careful balance of power struck by the Constitution and affords the federal government appropriate solicitude while this fast-moving case proceeds in the lower courts.”
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene means that arrangement remains intact for now.
Administration’s arguments rejected—temporarily
Solicitor General D. John Sauer had asked the justices to overturn the lower court rulings, contending that Trump’s actions were lawful and grounded in a “long historical tradition” dating back to President George Washington’s response to the Whiskey Rebellion.
“Most fundamentally, the decision whether to call up the National Guard in order to protect federal personnel and federal property is for the President to make — not the State of Illinois or a federal district court,” Sauer wrote, calling the lower court’s decision “indefensible.”
Sauer portrayed the case as part of what he described as a “disturbing and recurring pattern,” telling the justices that federal officers enforcing immigration law have faced “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance” in cities across the country. According to the administration, those conditions prompted Trump to seek National Guard assistance, only to be stalled by lawsuits.
Illinois and Chicago officials strongly disputed that account. They told the court there is “no credible evidence” that federal immigration enforcement has been substantially impeded in the state.
They pointed out that federal facilities remain open, individuals accused of attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and immigration enforcement activity in Illinois has increased in recent weeks.
Protests and security concerns
Court filings describe a mixed picture on the ground. The government cited incidents in which rubber bullets, pepper balls and tear gas were used against demonstrators, and said employees at federal facilities have sought escorts into buildings and reported slashed tires. According to the administration, a local gang leader even placed a $10,000 bounty on the murder of a senior Border Patrol official.
At the same time, state and local officials emphasized that protests have generally involved small numbers of people. Demonstrations near an ICE facility in Broadview, a western Chicago suburb, have typically drawn fewer than 50 participants and have not exceeded a few hundred, even after the Department of Homeland Security announced an immigration crackdown dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz” last month.
Local leaders in other cities targeted for deployments — including Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C. — have similarly rejected the administration’s descriptions of widespread unrest.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Oregon permanently blocked Trump from deploying that state’s National Guard to Portland, ruling that the president acted unlawfully. That decision was the first to directly address the merits of Trump’s legal authority to send troops into the streets of cities where immigration-related protests are occurring.
What happens next
The Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve the underlying legal question of whether Trump ultimately has the authority to deploy the National Guard in Illinois. Instead, it leaves the dispute to continue moving through the lower courts.
Last month, the justices requested additional briefing from both sides on whether the statute Trump invoked permits the use of “regular forces,” and whether that language refers to the U.S. military — a signal that the court is taking a close look at the scope of the president’s claimed authority.
.png)
