The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago and surrounding areas while a legal challenge continues, dealing a significant setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to use federalized forces to support immigration enforcement in Illinois.
In an unsigned order, the Court left in place a lower court ruling that bars National Guard members from being placed on the streets of Chicago.
The justices rejected the administration’s request to pause that decision, with the vote appearing to be 6–3. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The dispute centers on the president’s use of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the federalization of a state’s National Guard in limited circumstances, such as when federal law cannot be executed using “regular forces” or when there is a rebellion or imminent danger of one. President Trump invoked that authority in early October, asserting that federal immigration facilities in Illinois were under coordinated attack and that National Guard deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property.
At this stage of the litigation, however, the Supreme Court concluded that the administration failed to meet its burden to justify the extraordinary step. The Court said the government had not shown that Title 10 permits federalization of the Guard “in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”
The majority further suggested that the phrase “regular forces” likely refers to the U.S. military, which is generally barred from engaging in domestic law enforcement under the **Posse Comitatus Act**, absent clear authorization from Congress or the Constitution. As a result, the Court said, the circumstances under which a president may federalize the Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes are “exceptional.”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker welcomed the ruling, calling it “a big win for Illinois and American democracy.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson likewise praised the decision, saying it rebuked what he described as the president’s attempt to “militarize and demonize our city.”
The White House, however, played down the ruling’s significance. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the decision does not undermine the administration’s broader agenda.
“The president promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters,” she said, adding that the administration would continue its efforts to safeguard federal officers and property.
The legal fight began after Illinois and the city of Chicago sued the federal government, arguing that the president’s order to federalize the Illinois National Guard was unlawful and unnecessary. U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, finding that the government had failed to show a breakdown of civil authority. She described information provided by the Department of Homeland Security as “unreliable” and concluded that “resort to the military to execute the laws is not called for.”
A divided procedural path followed. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit allowed Guard members to remain under federal control, it upheld Judge Perry’s ban on deploying them into the Chicago area. The appellate court rejected the administration’s argument that protests against immigration enforcement amounted to rebellion, writing bluntly that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that courts lack authority to second-guess the president’s decision to federalize the Guard, warning against judicial interference with the military chain of command. Illinois officials countered that state and local law enforcement were managing protests effectively and cautioned that deploying troops could escalate tensions.
The Chicago case is part of a broader national conflict over the Trump administration’s use of National Guard forces in cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Washington, D.C., and Memphis. Federal courts have reached differing conclusions, with the 7th and 9th Circuits split on whether deployments are lawful in specific circumstances. Notably, both circuits have agreed that courts may review the president’s use of Title 10.
With the Supreme Court declining to intervene at this stage, the Illinois litigation will continue in the lower courts, setting the stage for a potentially far-reaching ruling on presidential power, federalism, and the domestic use of military forces.
