The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Trump administration’s effort to immediately deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, leaving intact a lower court order that halted the move and marking a setback—at least for now—for President Donald Trump’s broader push to federalize Guard units nationwide.
The justices refused an emergency appeal seeking to undo a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that blocked the deployment. A federal appeals court had already declined to step in, and the high court took more than two months before issuing its decision.
In its unsigned order, the Court said the administration had not shown it possessed the legal authority to proceed at this stage. “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 majority wrote.
Three members of the Court—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—publicly dissented. The outcome stands out as an uncommon loss for Trump, who has frequently prevailed in emergency appeals since returning to office in January.
Following the decision, the White House emphasized that the administration would continue pursuing its public safety goals. A spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration plans to keep working “day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson echoed that message in a statement, stressing that the ruling does not alter the president’s priorities. “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property,” Jackson said. “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul welcomed the Supreme Court’s action, framing it as a reaffirmation of constitutional limits on federal power. “Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states – believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state,” he said. “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state’s objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”
The ruling follows a request filed by the Trump administration last week asking the justices to pause the lower court’s order while the case proceeds.
Civil liberties advocates also praised the outcome. Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the decision underscored how unusual domestic troop deployments are. “This decision reinforces that domestic deployment of troops is rare and exceptional, and it was absolutely unjustified in Illinois,” she said. “With each court decision against the President’s domestic troop deployments, it becomes clearer that his version of American cities as hellscapes, and protest against his policies as requiring troops, is plain false. We’re glad that the Supreme Court has upheld the order blocking this blatant abuse of presidential power because there’s no reason for any troops policing civilians in our streets.”
In its appeal, the administration argued that the lower court rulings interfered with presidential authority. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court that the decisions “improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”
Sauer further warned that stopping the deployment could put federal officers at risk, saying it could “jeopardizing the lives and safety of DHS officers” and block what he described as “reasonable and lawful measures” to shield agents from what the administration characterized as “violent resistance” in Chicago.
Lawyers representing Illinois and the city of Chicago rejected those claims, telling the justices that the administration’s arguments “rest on mischaracterizations of the factual record or the lower courts’ views of the legal principles.”
They pointed to Judge Perry’s findings, which concluded that the government’s descriptions of protests in Chicago and nearby Broadview were “unreliable” and exaggerated both the level of violence and the challenges facing law enforcement.
“As the district court found, state and local law enforcement officers have handled isolated protest activities in Illinois, and there is no credible evidence to the contrary,” attorneys for Illinois said Monday.
The Chicago dispute is part of a wider legal battle as Trump seeks to send hundreds of National Guard troops into several Democratic-led cities, often over objections from governors and mayors.
Some federal courts have pushed back. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut described Trump’s actions in a restraining order as “untethered to reality” and inconsistent with conditions on the ground, though a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit later put her order on hold, allowing the administration to move forward with a deployment to Portland.
In Washington, D.C., another federal judge is scheduled to hear updates Friday on the status of National Guard troops in the capital, after the city’s attorney general said in a new filing that the deployment could extend through at least summer 2026. It remains unclear whether that timeline reflects the administration’s plans or how many of the roughly 2,500 Guard members sent to D.C. in August would remain.
Administration officials maintain that the deployments are needed to counter rising violent crime and protect federal personnel from protesters, including anti-ICE demonstrations.
Democrats counter that the president has not met the statutory requirements for federalizing the Guard under USC § 12406, which permits such action only in cases of foreign invasion, a “danger of a rebellion,” or when state authorities are unable to enforce the law. They argue that Trump’s descriptions of conditions are exaggerated and amount to a pretext for asserting federal control over Democratic-led states and cities.
{Matzav.com}