This means the United States Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to send National Guard troops to Chicago. This is a watershed development in the national litigation over military deployments around the country. On Tuesday, the justices cemented that decision, ruling 6-3 on those lines without any hesitation. They continued on to highlight how the administration did not satisfy the legal standard for justifying federal military intervention.
The case in Illinois is part of a bigger trend. Every day states across the country are filing new legal challenges to the unconstitutional deployment of National Guard forces. Recently, the Trump administration had sent over 2,200 troops from Republican-led states to Washington D.C. in response to protests and unrest. The legality of these deployments has been challenged in courts around the country.
In Tennessee, a state court issued a landmark decision. It stood with Democratic leaders who wanted to call off the current National Guard mission in Memphis before it could start. As the case has garnered national attention, briefs from 45 states have inundated federal court, detailing their split allegiances. While 23 states support the Trump administration’s actions, 22 have sided with the attorney general’s lawsuit against the deployment.
US District Judge April Perry really shook things up on the Chicago case. She successfully lobbied Gov. The Supreme Court’s decision upheld her ruling and denied the Justice Department’s request to lift the order. The majority opinion stated, “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 dissenting justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—had much to say in opposition. Gorsuch went out of his way to stress that he would have voted for the government. He drew his position from statements made by federal law enforcement officials regarding alleged threats.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority’s decision to stop the Chicago deployment. He underscored his intent to provide the president with more flexibility for future troop deployments. If so, he argues that this might be the most important shift of all.
While this ruling is specific to Illinois, the implications reach far beyond its borders. It would influence several other related lawsuits and the broader issue of Trump’s attempts to deploy military troops to Democratic stronghold cities. A federal judge in Oregon ruled just recently to block that deployment. As a result, 200 California troops are coming home.
In California, legal challenges have recently been used to block troop deployments. A federal judge ruled in September that it was illegal to send National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area, a decision made last spring. For their part, the Trump administration has appealed these rulings. It would repeal Congressional decisions that limit its ability to deploy military forces for law enforcement and domestic security.
The administration has asserted that the deployment of National Guard troops is necessary “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” While these legal challenges play out in court, the patchwork legal landscape governing military deployments is fraught and complicated.