The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump and refused to lift a block on National Guard deployment within the state of Illinois, finding that Trump invoked a law that required him to first be unable to execute federal law with help from regular military forces.
The justices wrote, in an unsigned opinion, that their conclusion means the law only applies in situations where the military has legal authority to execute criminal law — circumstances the high court called “exceptional.”
“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,” they wrote.
In doing so, the high court denied the Trump administration’s request that it lift the October order by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who blocked deployment of the National Guard within Illinois while a lawsuit continues in her courtroom in Chicago. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, concurred on narrow grounds.
The decision, appearing on the high court’s “emergency” or “shadow” docket, is the first from the justices addressing Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into American cities against the will of local elected officials. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in mid-October that the lives and safety of federal personnel were at risk, but the justices let two months go by before ruling.
They also sought additional information about the role of the U.S. military under the law invoked by Trump. Meanwhile, his administration continued to suffer legal setbacks in Chicago related to the deportation campaign known as Operation Midway Blitz.
That campaign seems to have mostly ramped down for the winter, though U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino made another recent appearance in the area.
Gov. JB Pritzker called the high court’s Tuesday ruling “a big win for Illinois and American democracy.”
“I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois,” Pritzker said in a statement. “This is an important step in curbing the Trump administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he was “pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said the decision “doesn’t just protect Chicago — but protect[s] cities around the country who have been threatened by Trump’s campaign against immigrants and Democratic-led cities.”
The White House did not immediately comment.
Legal battles have also been fought over Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops in California and Oregon, but Illinois’ lawsuit was the first to reach the Supreme Court. The Trump administration said it wanted to deploy Illinois and Texas National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and facilities, but Illinois attorneys argued it was really an attempt to punish the state.
That’s because Illinois and Chicago have adopted so-called sanctuary policies, which mean local authorities won’t assist federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement in tracking down immigrants without legal status.
Texas National Guard troops left town by Nov. 17. But federalization of the Illinois National Guard is expected to last until April 15, according to Pritzker’s office.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after four lower-court judges — two appointed by Democratic presidents and two appointed by Republicans — concluded the facts on the ground didn’t justify Trump’s deployment of the National Guard. The rulings have blocked Trump from deploying troops within Illinois since early October.
Arguments revolved around a law that allows the president to call into federal service members of the National Guard of any state if there is an invasion or rebellion — or if the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Trump administration has not argued there has been an invasion, but it has pointed to the other two circumstances in the law. In late October, the Supreme Court justices asked both sides to explain “whether the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation” of the law.
Illinois and Chicago argued “regular forces” did refer to the military, meaning Trump’s bid to deploy National Guard troops should be rejected. Sauer argued it didn’t matter because the president “determined that the regular forces of the United States are not sufficient.” Trump didn’t specify who the “regular forces” were, Sauer insisted, “much less exclude the standing military from consideration.”
Included with Tuesday’s ruling was a 16-page dissent from Alito, joined by Thomas. Alito complained that his fellow jurists overstepped when they asked about the military’s role in the controversy. He rejected Perry’s analysis from October, and he pointed to claims of “injuries, threats, vandalism, and harassment” of federal agents that he said “significantly impaired efforts to execute the laws.”
Along the way, Alito also questioned whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement, applies to federalized National Guard troops.
Alito was appointed to the high court by President George W. Bush. Thomas was appointed by President George H. W. Bush.
Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote in a separate dissent that “caution seems to me key.” He said he would side with the Trump administration but leave “all the weighty questions” for another time when they “can receive the full airing they so clearly deserve.”
Perry, named to the bench by President Joe Biden, originally ruled against the Trump administration Oct. 9, finding its “perception of events” around Chicago was “simply unreliable.” She said she’d seen “no credible evidence that there is danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois,” nor that Trump “is unable, with the regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States.”
A three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mostly upheld Perry’s ruling, finding that “the facts do not justify the president’s actions in Illinois” under the law. The panel declared that “political opposition is not rebellion.” It also said the Trump administration’s own rhetoric undermined its claim that it was “unable” to execute federal law.
“The administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area,” the panel wrote.
That ruling came from Judges Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton and Amy St. Eve. Rovner was appointed to the appellate court by President George H. W. Bush; Hamilton was appointed by President Barack Obama; and St. Eve was appointed by Trump.