Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Trump in National Guard Ruling | TNNEWS

Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Illinois

The U.S. Supreme Court Image credit: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against President Trump’s request to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois, a move opposed by the state’s governor. This decision temporarily halts Trump’s efforts to federalize the National Guard in response to protests in the Chicago area.

Background and Legal Arguments

In October, the administration appealed to federalize the National Guard, citing ongoing violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. However, lower courts rejected the claim that the protests amounted to a “rebellion” that justified military intervention.

This ruling is one of the few instances where the conservative court has opposed Trump since his second term began. Legal experts were surprised by the lengthy deliberation period, which extended beyond initial expectations.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The majority opinion stated that the government failed to provide a legal basis for military involvement in Illinois, referencing the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military enforcement of domestic laws. This decision, while not precedent-setting, clarifies the limits of presidential power in deploying federal troops.

The court’s decision aligns with the findings of both the trial court and a three-judge appeals panel, which included appointees from different administrations.

Reactions and Implications

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul welcomed the ruling, emphasizing the importance of state sovereignty in military matters. The White House has yet to comment, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided a concurring opinion.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court overstepped by addressing broader issues of military deployment rather than the specific legal question presented.

Historical Context and Ongoing Legal Battles

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that federal troops were necessary to protect federal agents amid increased immigration enforcement in Chicago. Despite withdrawing some forces, the administration has intensified efforts in the city.

Local officials criticized the deployment as unnecessary, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott briefly sending additional troops, who were later recalled.

Similar legal challenges have occurred in other states. In Oregon, a federal judge blocked a deployment in Portland, citing state sovereignty. In Tennessee, a temporary block on troop use was paused pending appeal.

National Guard Deployments Across the U.S.

In California, Trump federalized the National Guard against Governor Gavin Newsom’s wishes, deploying troops to Los Angeles. A federal judge later ordered the end of this deployment.

In Washington, D.C., troops have been present since August due to a declared “crime emergency.” A federal judge ordered their removal, but a subsequent attack led to additional deployments, which a federal appeals court upheld.