In a stunning clash over federal power, the U.S. Supreme Court has slapped down President Donald Trump’s bid to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to shield federal personnel from protester threats.
The 6-3 ruling on Tuesday temporarily blocks Trump’s plan to federalize about 300 Guard members, upholding lower court decisions that the administration failed to meet the legal threshold for such a move, as Fox News reports.
For hardworking Chicago taxpayers, this decision could mean continued unrest near federal buildings, with potential spikes in local law enforcement costs as the state scrambles to manage protests without federal backup.
The saga began when Trump invoked a seldom-used federal law to send National Guard troops to protect ICE officers, claiming protesters were obstructing and assaulting them in Chicago.
The administration argued that Illinois’ Democratic leadership and local police weren’t doing enough to curb the chaos, leaving federal personnel vulnerable to serious harm.
Illinois pushed back hard, filing a lawsuit to stop the deployment, asserting it trampled on the state’s right to control its own law enforcement resources.
Lower courts sided with Illinois, ruling that Trump didn’t meet the legal standard, which requires exhausting regular military forces before turning to the National Guard.
The Supreme Court majority agreed in an unsigned order, clarifying that “regular forces” means the U.S. military, not civilian agencies like ICE.
They argued Trump hadn’t justified using the military domestically in Chicago first, and warned that Guard deployment for law enforcement could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic policing.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, fired off a sharp dissent, calling the majority’s ruling “unwise” and “imprudent” for dismissing the real dangers faced by federal officers.
“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote. Let’s unpack that: if we can’t protect those enforcing our laws, what message does that send to communities already frustrated with federal overreach?
Alito also found it “puzzling” that the majority leaned so heavily on the Posse Comitatus Act, arguing the president has clear authority to use military forces in emergencies. Here’s the rub—tying the president’s hands in a crisis isn’t just shortsighted, it’s a risky precedent for any future administration facing domestic threats.
Alito pointed out that Trump’s efforts to deploy the Guard extend beyond Chicago, with similar plans for cities like Portland and parts of California facing legal challenges over immigration enforcement and street crime.
Illinois, meanwhile, insists the ICE protests are largely peaceful and under control, claiming the deployment would infringe on its sovereign interests—a noble stand, perhaps, but one that sidesteps the federal government’s duty to protect its own.
In this case, the furthest along in the courts, continues to unfold, conservatives must ask: when does state autonomy trump the safety of federal workers, and who ultimately pays the price for this judicial tug-of-war?
