Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow National Guard in Chicago/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to permit the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area. A federal judge temporarily blocked the move, citing no evidence of rebellion. Protests and legal opposition are mounting across several states, including Tennessee and Oregon.
National Guard Deployment Legal Battle: Quick Looks
- The Trump administration is escalating efforts to use National Guard troops domestically.
- A federal judge blocked deployment in Chicago; Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court.
- Protests erupted outside ICE facilities; several arrests have occurred.
- Judges in Oregon and California have issued similar deployment blocks.
- Tennessee officials sued over the Guard presence in Memphis, citing constitutional issues.
- National Guard members are patrolling cities but lack arrest authority.
- The situation is part of broader immigration enforcement tensions with Democratic leaders.
Deep Look
Trump Administration Appeals to Supreme Court for National Guard Deployment in Chicago
WASHINGTON — In a bold legal maneuver, the Trump administration on Friday formally requested that the U.S. Supreme Court authorize the deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area. The request marks an intensification of President Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with Democratic governors over the federal government’s use of military force within U.S. borders, especially for immigration enforcement purposes.
The emergency appeal followed a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who temporarily blocked the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas for a minimum of two weeks. Judge Perry cited a lack of evidence of any imminent “danger of rebellion” in Illinois that would justify such a military presence. A federal appellate court declined the administration’s request to stay Perry’s order, prompting the White House to escalate the issue to the nation’s highest court.
Supreme Court Trend Favoring Trump
The conservative-leaning Supreme Court has often sided with President Trump in emergency appeals since his return to office in January. Previous rulings have upheld controversial policies including the military ban on transgender individuals, the reallocation of billions in federal funding, aggressive immigration crackdowns, and the dismissal of Senate-confirmed officials from federal agencies. This latest appeal may continue that trend, though the issue carries heightened political and legal sensitivity due to its implications for states’ rights and civil liberties.
Legal Justification and Pushback
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the administration, stated that the lower court’s ruling “impinges on the President’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” His brief to the Supreme Court emphasized the administration’s belief that federal intervention is necessary for national security and public safety.
Despite this, Judge Perry and others maintain there is insufficient justification to invoke such military measures. Perry’s ruling echoed concerns from Democratic leaders who say that the presence of military personnel on domestic soil, especially in civilian areas, undermines democratic principles and local autonomy.
Protests Intensify at ICE Facility in Broadview
On the ground, tensions are escalating. Eleven individuals were arrested on Friday during protests outside a U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, a suburb west of Chicago. The site has become a flashpoint for civil unrest, with federal agents previously deploying tear gas and chemical agents to disperse demonstrators and members of the press.
Authorities had asked protestors to remain within designated zones, but confrontations have persisted in recent weeks. The area continues to draw attention from both activists and federal law enforcement.
Similar Legal Battles Unfold Across U.S.
The Chicago situation is not isolated. In Oregon, a federal judge has also temporarily barred the use of National Guard troops within the state, adding to a growing list of judicial setbacks for the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.
In Tennessee, Democratic officials filed a lawsuit Friday aiming to halt Guard operations in Memphis. They contend that Republican Governor Bill Lee acted unconstitutionally by deploying troops without legislative approval, in violation of the state constitution’s limitations on military use during peacetime.
“The deployment sets a dangerous precedent for military intrusion into local communities,” warned Memphis City Council member JB Smiley.
Since October 10, National Guard units have been visibly patrolling downtown Memphis, including around tourist-heavy zones near the Pyramid arena. Troops wear full military police gear, including holstered firearms, but officials insist they lack authority to make arrests.
Longstanding Crime Issues Used as Justification
Governor Lee defended the deployment, citing the need to curb violent crime in the city. Memphis has long struggled with crime rates, including homicides, carjackings, and assaults. While some crime metrics have improved in 2025, residents and officials alike acknowledge that public safety remains a significant challenge.
California Deployment Also Found Unlawful
A similar deployment in Los Angeles was ruled illegal by a federal judge in September. However, by the time of the decision, only about 300 of the several thousand troops initially stationed in the region remained, and the court did not compel them to leave.
The series of legal challenges highlights the growing national debate over the use of military resources for civilian law enforcement functions and the federal government’s reach into state-managed affairs.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.