Justices block Trump troop deployment in Chicago over objection of 3 conservatives

WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday, saying he did not have the legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration officials.

to act by a 6-3 vote.The justices rejected Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said Trump exaggerated the threat and exceeded his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad assertion that he has the authority to deploy military force on US cities.

In an unsigned ruling, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to call in the National Guard only if U.S. military forces cannot quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to enforce the law in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute creating an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had authorized the appointments in Los Angeles and Portland after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Dec. 10 that federal National Guard troops in Los Angeles should be placed under the control of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers did not argue in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for regular law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said, Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

In the Chicago case, as in the Portland case, the two sides told strikingly different stories about the circumstances that led to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration officials. They said police were able to control protests, clear entrances and prevent violence.

In contrast, administration officials described repeated incidents of disruption, clashes and violence in Chicago. They said immigration officers were being harassed and prevented from doing their jobs and needed the protection the National Guard could provide.

Trump lawyer Gen. D. John Sauer said the president has the authority to deploy the Guard if agents fail to enforce immigration laws.

“Faced with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal laws,” Trump called on the National Guard to “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence.” he told the court In an urgent appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state attorneys disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, people who violate the law by attacking federal officials are being arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state attorney Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s objection.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to “provide for the summoning of militia to enforce the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.”

Militia Act 1903 It says the president can call and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, an insurrection, or is “unable to enforce the laws of the United States with regular forces.”

Trump’s lawyers said that was a reference to police and federal agents. However, after closer examination, the court concluded that it referred to regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to call in the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell the violence.

But on October 29, the judges asked both sides to explain what the law meant by “regular forces”.

Until then, both sides assumed it was directed at federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred not to the military but to “civilian forces that regularly enforce the law.”

If these civilians were unable to enforce the law, they said, “there is a strong tradition in this country that favors the use of the military rather than a ready-made army to suppress civil unrest.”

Illinois State Prosecutors said the “regular force” was a “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president “cannot reasonably assert” that U.S. troops are needed to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Adv. Gen. Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case This prompted the president to warn of the danger of using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, our President made a call for the first time in our Nation’s history. [U.S. law] “To federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of the California National Guard (one-third of the Guard’s total active members) to federal control to serve as civilian law enforcement on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

It proved to be “the opening salvo of an effort to transform the military’s role in American society,” they said. “At no time in our history has the President used the military this way: as his personal police force, to be deployed on law enforcement missions as he sees fit.

“What the federal government is seeking is a standing army drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President for civil law enforcement throughout the country for an indefinite period of time,” they said.