Supreme Court won’t allow National Guard deployment to Chicago in major loss for Trump

[mystery-ak]

 Supreme Court won’t allow National Guard deployment to Chicago in major loss for Trump
by Ella Lee - 12/23/25 3:35 PM ET

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled President Trump may not deploy the National Guard to the Chicago area for now amid his push for military troops to patrol the streets of Democratic-led cities, a major loss for the president at the high court. 

After more than two months of consideration, the court refused to pause a district judge’s ruling temporarily blocking hundreds of National Guard members from being federalized and deployed across Illinois, rejecting the government’s emergency request. 

“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 unsigned order reads.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

It’s the first time the high court has weighed in on the legal fight over Trump’s aggressive use of the National Guard on U.S. soil, as challenges to the president’s efforts move through the courts.

Illinois and Chicago officials had urged the justices to keep intact the appeals court’s middle-ground decision, which lifted the portion of U.S. District Judge April Perry’s ruling blocking Trump’s federalization of the troops but maintained the part that kept them from deploying.

They said it “both safeguards the careful balance of power struck by the Constitution and affords the federal government appropriate solicitude while this fast-moving case proceeds in the lower courts.”

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5661555-supreme-court-blocks-trump-guard/

[libertybele]

Anyone surprised???  I'm waiting for things to get so bad in Chicago that they beg for the Nat'l Guard to be deployed.  If not the city will burn and the inhabitants will demand that the gov't fix their city!

[jafo2010]

I say the Supreme Court is way out of line here, along with all the other liberal federal judges impeding this administration.

In my mind, Trump should fire 40% of all the federal judges and their support staff immediately.  If these judicial clowns have this much time on their hands to entertain these frivolous lawsuits, there are just too many of them.

I say DOGE the crap out of the judicial branch of government.  Reduce the Supreme Court to five judges.

[Timber Rattler]

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Note who didn't dissent.

Roberts feeling the upward pressure from his torqued off liberal District judges.

[Timber Rattler]

I say the Supreme Court is way out of line here, along with all the other liberal federal judges impeding this administration.

In my mind, Trump should fire 40% of all the federal judges and their support staff immediately.  If these judicial clowns have this much time on their hands to entertain these frivolous lawsuits, there are just too many of them.

I say DOGE the crap out of the judicial branch of government.  Reduce the Supreme Court to five judges.

Trump can't.  The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government and does it's own hiring and firing.  Congress funds it through annual appropriations and confirms judges while the Executive nominates them and provides protection.

[Hoodat]

Then Trump shouldn't allow federal tax dollars to be deployed to Chicago.  If they want lawlessness, then give it to them.  See what happens to Chicago when all those illegals stop getting their free shit.  They'll be begging for National Guard troops.

[jafo2010]

Not true exactly.  The following is a list of Presidents that made an effort to change the Supreme Court.  I say kick their teeth in.  Also, put forth a law that requires mandatory retirement by a given age.  We don't have enough stinking lawyers in America to replace judges who are over a given age, say 80 or 85?  Come on!


Key Instances of Size Changes:

1801 (President John Adams): A lame-duck Federalist Congress, with Adams' support, reduced the Court from six to five justices to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson's power.

1802 (Jefferson): Jefferson and his party repealed the act, restoring the Court to six justices.

1837 (President Andrew Jackson): Congress expanded the Court from seven to nine members.

1863 (President Lincoln): The Court grew to ten justices to handle Civil War cases.

1866 (Andrew Johnson): A Congress at odds with President Johnson reduced the court to seven justices.

1869 (President Ulysses S. Grant): Congress set the number back to nine, where it has remained ever since.

FDR's "Court-Packing" Plan (1937):
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed attempt to add up to six new justices (for those over 70 who didn't retire) to overcome the Court's opposition to his New Deal policies.

In essence, while Congress has the constitutional power to set the number, presidents have historically influenced these decisions, especially through legislation or failed expansion plans like FDR's.

[Kamaji]

Not true exactly.  The following is a list of Presidents that made an effort to change the Supreme Court.  I say kick their teeth in.  Also, put forth a law that requires mandatory retirement by a given age.  We don't have enough stinking lawyers in America to replace judges who are over a given age, say 80 or 85?  Come on!


Key Instances of Size Changes:

1801 (President John Adams): A lame-duck Federalist Congress, with Adams' support, reduced the Court from six to five justices to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson's power.

1802 (Jefferson): Jefferson and his party repealed the act, restoring the Court to six justices.

1837 (President Andrew Jackson): Congress expanded the Court from seven to nine members.

1863 (President Lincoln): The Court grew to ten justices to handle Civil War cases.

1866 (Andrew Johnson): A Congress at odds with President Johnson reduced the court to seven justices.

1869 (President Ulysses S. Grant): Congress set the number back to nine, where it has remained ever since.

FDR's "Court-Packing" Plan (1937):
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed attempt to add up to six new justices (for those over 70 who didn't retire) to overcome the Court's opposition to his New Deal policies.

In essence, while Congress has the constitutional power to set the number, presidents have historically influenced these decisions, especially through legislation or failed expansion plans like FDR's.

If you really want a permanently liberal Supreme Court, then open the door to packing it, because sure as shootin’ the democrats will take that invitation and drive a million new federal judges through it.

Not a good idea.

Maybe sit back and consider the issues and play, the concepts of federalism, and the fact that this is a preliminary ruling, not a ruling on the merits.

Also, in the meantime, you might try identifying a power under the Constitution that would permit the federal government to enforce state law. 

[andy58-in-nh]

Let the cities burn. In the long run, it's the only way to stop the madness of pro-crime ideologues.

[jafo2010]

The problem is that there are good people dying in these Democommie run cities.  Yes, it would be easy to just let these cities burn to the ground and let the criminals destroy everything they touch, but it means far more good people are forced to suffer and die along the way.  I applaud Trump attempting to stand up for those people crying for help.

And I consider these POS judges as an evil rot in our society.  If lawyers were what they portend to be, people that uphold the law, it would be one thing, but from my view, they pervert the law, are more often than not drunk on pure raw power, and do little to nothing to defend the law.

As a result  of the corrupt Supreme Court, good people that are citizens of this nation will die, and the evil criminal element, that now control the Democommies, will reign in these cities.  That is not justice.

Finally, as long as the Bush appointed POS John Roberts remains on the court, and the chief of that court, justice will come in small bites.  He is IMHO the worst chief justice in my lifetime.

[Kamaji]

The problem is that there are good people dying in these Democommie run cities.  Yes, it would be easy to just let these cities burn to the ground and let the criminals destroy everything they touch, but it means far more good people are forced to suffer and die along the way.  I applaud Trump attempting to stand up for those people crying for help.

And I consider these POS judges as an evil rot in our society.  If lawyers were what they portend to be, people that uphold the law, it would be one thing, but from my view, they pervert the law, are more often than not drunk on pure raw power, and do little to nothing to defend the law.

As a result  of the corrupt Supreme Court, good people that are citizens of this nation will die, and the evil criminal element, that now control the Democommies, will reign in these cities.  That is not justice.

Finally, as long as the Bush appointed POS John Roberts remains on the court, and the chief of that court, justice will come in small bites.  He is IMHO the worst chief justice in my lifetime.

First off, that’s the same sort of “it’s for the children” argument that liberals always make to justify their interventions.

Second, you have no idea if anyone is dying because Donald Trump isn’t there acting as federal nanny.

Third, this is what federalism is all about - it only matters if you respect it when things are going badly.  It’s like the First Amendment - it’s not intended or designed to protect nice speech, it’s designed to protect hateful speech. 

Fourth, that is precisely the sort of argument liberals use to circumvent the Second Amendment: people are dying because of guns. 

Have the courage of the founders convictions and respect federalism. Which means that each state and locality is respected as sovereign in its own sphere, even if that means that people will get hurt. 

[jafo2010]

Your argument is bullsh*t.  There is nothing in common with me and liberalism.

And you NOT KNOWING that people are dyiing every day in Chicago because the government there is not executing their role to defend and protect the citizens is quite obtuse in my opinion.  Hell, there were more people dying every weekend in Chicago by gunfire then in hot areas like Iraq.

And tell me, with your mindset, if the stinking Democommies allowed every person to be killed in their jurisdiction by the criminals, that would be perfectly ok with you, because of federalism. 

And I do not agree with your analogy about Dems declaring people are dead because of guns.  The Dems are idiots, and you using their argument against me is equally so.  The people of the USA are entitled to live their lives without the fear of being shot while sitting watching TV in their living room or a child being killed in their crib by a drive by stray bullet.  When local and state politicians abdicate their responsibility, something Democommies are highly skilled at doing, I see nothing wrong with what Trump is doing to establish order and safety in these criminal bastions of authority. 

I think the founders more than anyone would say to let a major city stand alone and be managed by abdicative leaders in terms of their elected responsibility while the citizenry are murdered IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[Kamaji]

Your argument is bullsh*t.  There is nothing in common with me and liberalism.

And you NOT KNOWING that people are dyiing every day in Chicago because the government there is not executing their role to defend and protect the citizens is quite obtuse in my opinion.  Hell, there were more people dying every weekend in Chicago by gunfire then in hot areas like Iraq.

And tell me, with your mindset, if the stinking Democommies allowed every person to be killed in their jurisdiction by the criminals, that would be perfectly ok with you, because of federalism. 

And I do not agree with your analogy about Dems declaring people are dead because of guns.  The Dems are idiots, and you using their argument against me is equally so.  The people of the USA are entitled to live their lives without the fear of being shot while sitting watching TV in their living room or a child being killed in their crib by a drive by stray bullet.  When local and state politicians abdicate their responsibility, something Democommies are highly skilled at doing, I see nothing wrong with what Trump is doing to establish order and safety in these criminal bastions of authority. 

I think the founders more than anyone would say to let a major city stand alone and be managed by abdicative leaders in terms of their elected responsibility while the citizenry are murdered IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

If you’re not a liberal, why are you emoting like one?

If people are dying in Chicago, then that’s on them and on the voters in Chicago who voted for the current government.  Elections have consequences. 

Grow up, start acting like an adult, and stop emoting like some high school lib.

Federalism exists for a reason, is an important principle, and isn’t to be abandoned just because you don’t personally like the results of what the voters of Chicago have chosen for themselves.

[mountaineer]

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump vs. Illinois ruled that Trump needs to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to send the troops into Chicago.

Kavanaugh in his dissent even says that this ruling “could cause the President to use the US military more than the National Guard”.

The Supreme Court just admitted that Trump has the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass Posse Comitatus and send the troops to Chicago, and any other city he wants. ...

https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2003592327244447867

[Bigun]

The problem is that there are good people dying in these Democommie run cities.  Yes, it would be easy to just let these cities burn to the ground and let the criminals destroy everything they touch, but it means far more good people are forced to suffer and die along the way.  I applaud Trump attempting to stand up for those people crying for help.

And I consider these POS judges as an evil rot in our society.  If lawyers were what they portend to be, people that uphold the law, it would be one thing, but from my view, they pervert the law, are more often than not drunk on pure raw power, and do little to nothing to defend the law.

As a result  of the corrupt Supreme Court, good people that are citizens of this nation will die, and the evil criminal element, that now control the Democommies, will reign in these cities.  That is not justice.

Finally, as long as the Bush appointed POS John Roberts remains on the court, and the chief of that court, justice will come in small bites.  He is IMHO the worst chief justice in my lifetime.

The PROBLEM is this "Supreme Court won't allow" BS and everybody being OK with the notion.

[Kamaji]

The PROBLEM is this "Supreme Court won't allow" BS and everybody being OK with the notion.

Yeah, because one should just ignore the courts if one doesn’t like their decisions.  That’s how the rule of law is respected.



Silly me; I thought I logged onto TBR, but I seem to have gotten onto DU by accident. 

[Bigun]

Yeah, because one should just ignore the courts if one doesn’t like their decisions.  That’s how the rule of law is respected.



Silly me; I thought I logged onto TBR, but I seem to have gotten onto DU by accident.

Silly me! I thought our constitution provided for three separate and independent branches of government.

[rustynail]

'Trump needs to invoke the Insurrection Act'.  He has no choice, they forced him into this.  Time to call old man Marshal Law?

[Kamaji]

Silly me! I thought our constitution provided for three separate and independent branches of government.

Silly me, I thought the Constitution specifically provided for a system of checks and balances, including specifically the power of the judicial branch to check the excesses of the executive branch.

Gawrsh, silly me, I must have been reading some other country's constitution.

[Kamaji]

'Trump needs to invoke the Insurrection Act'.  He has no choice, they forced him into this.  Time to call old man Marshal Law?

Why?  Just because Chicago can't seem to get its act together and do law enforcement properly?

Why should the federal taxpayer, and National Guard troops, have to pay the cost for the consequences that should rightfully be visited on the idiots in Chicago who voted for the current politicians there?

[Bigun]

Silly me, I thought the Constitution specifically provided for a system of checks and balances, including specifically the power of the judicial branch to check the excesses of the executive branch.

Gawrsh, silly me, I must have been reading some other country's constitution.

Show me the language in the constitution that grants the judicial branch ANY power over either of the other two branches. Not interested in powers they might have chosen to assign to themselves. Just precise constitutional language.

[Timber Rattler]

Seems that there might be a loophole in the SCOTUS ruling in which the justices say that it would be A-OK if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act.

[Free Vulcan]

Trump instead relies on “inherent constitutional authority” that he claims lets him use the military to protect federal personnel and property, the court wrote, failing to show the law permits him to federalize and deploy the Guard for that aim.

Since when?

[Kamaji]

Show me the language in the constitution that grants the judicial branch ANY power over either of the other two branches. Not interested in powers they might have chosen to assign to themselves. Just precise constitutional language.

Hmmm, gee, maybe that would be the granting of the entire judicial power of the United States to the judiciary. 

Those aren’t empty words, and that power includes the power to decide what the law says and to issue decisions that are binding on the parties involved, including the executive branch   


But then, like all liberals, you’re really only interested in what favors your personal subjective beliefs, and the rule of law be damned.

[Bigun]

Hmmm, gee, maybe that would be the granting of the entire judicial power of the United States to the judiciary. 

Those aren’t empty words, and that power includes the power to decide what the law says and to issue decisions that are binding on the parties involved, including the executive branch   


But then, like all liberals, you’re really only interested in what favors your personal subjective beliefs, and the rule of law be damned.

Show me the words from constitution or STFU!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Silly me! I thought our constitution provided for three separate and independent branches of government.

USSC interprets law. If they don't do that, or if their interpretations are "optional" or "advisory" then why have a USSC at all? The government has carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to do right?

None of this is necessary, far better to attach strings to the multitude of funding we send to Chicago. Trump's too quick to think of a strongman solution.

[Kamaji]

Show me the words from constitution or STFU!

GFY. You can look up Article 3 yourself.  All the words are right there.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2003896940980019377

[Timber Rattler]

That's right...just like President Buchanan sending a company of U.S. Marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee to crush John Brown's attempted insurrection at Harper's Ferry.

[Bigun]

GFY. You can look up Article 3 yourself.  All the words are right there.

I've read it many times, but my penumbra glasses never worked.

Article III
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[/size

Show me where it says they can tell the president what he can or cannot do.

[mystery-ak]

Stop the fighting please!

[roamer_1]

Federalism exists for a reason, is an important principle, and isn’t to be abandoned just because you don’t personally like the results of what the voters of Chicago have chosen for themselves.

I will stand with you in this (no real surprise there). Allowing federal military into a state without/against the expressed will of the governor of that state is pushing sovereignty in the wrong direction.

He's already got a mighty hammer in withholding funds. He can pull his people and close federal sites (to include Social Security and social services)... But troops on the ground are the jurisdiction of the governor, not the fed.

[mystery-ak]

Alito rips Supreme Court majority as 'unwise' for blocking Trump's National Guard plan
Conservative justice warns decision could limit federal government's ability to protect personnel during unrest
 By Ashley Oliver Fox News
Published December 24, 2025 2:36pm EST

Justice Samuel Alito criticized the Supreme Court’s majority in a sharp dissent Tuesday after the high court decided 6–3 to temporarily block President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago.

Alito said the high court’s majority made "unwise" and "imprudent" determinations to reach its decision. The majority also did not give enough deference to Trump after the president found that agitators were hindering immigration officers and other federal personnel from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the National Guard needed to step in to help.

"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.

The lawsuit stemmed from Trump invoking a rarely used federal law to federalize about 300 members of the National Guard and deploy them to protect federal personnel and buildings.

The Trump administration argued that protesters were obstructing, assaulting and threatening ICE officers, and the National Guard was needed because Illinois’ resistant Democratic leaders and local law enforcement were not adequately addressing the matter, the administration said.

Illinois sued, and the lower courts blocked the National Guard’s deployment, finding that Trump had not satisfied criteria in the law that said the president could only use the reserved forces when he was "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The Supreme Court’s decision upheld that finding while the case proceeds through the courts.

The Supreme Court's majority said in an unsigned order that "regular forces" meant the U.S. military, not ICE or other civilian law enforcement officers. The majority said that since Trump had not identified any justification for using the regular military for domestic purposes in Chicago, there was no way to exhaust that option before using the National Guard.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-rips-supreme-court-majority-unwise-blocking-trumps-national-guard-plan

[Timber Rattler]

But troops on the ground are the jurisdiction of the governor, not the fed.

As I pointed out before, here is the problem...



https://www.history.com/articles/little-rock-nine-brown-v-board-eisenhower-101-airborne

Why Eisenhower Sent Federal Troops to Little Rock After Brown v. Board

On September 23, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730 (https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=923), which put the Arkansas National Guard under federal authority, and sent 1,000 U.S. Army troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, to maintain order as Central High School desegregated.

“Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our nation,” said Eisenhower, in a televised address he gave at the White House the day after he enforced his executive order. “Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of the courts.”

“Eisenhower was boxed into a corner and reached a point where he had to show the power of the federal government and chop off continued insurrection of southern segregationists,” says Dolores Barclay, an adjunct professor at Columbia Journalism School and administrative manager of the Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights. “His decision was decidedly political—to maintain federal power—and to ensure that Brown was enforced.”

And then John F. Kennedy did it again...

Kennedy federalized National Guard to integrate Alabama public schools (Sept. 10, 1963)

https://www.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2013/09/kennedy_federalized_national_g.html

President John F. Kennedy federalized the 17,000 member Alabama National Guard to allow black students to attend nine previously all-white schools in Birmingham and across the state.

"Governor Wallace has refused to respect either the law or the authority of local officials. For his own personal and political reasons -- so that he may later charge Federal interference -- he is desperately anxious to have the Federal Government intervene in a situation in which we have no desire to intervene," Kennedy stated.

So that precedent has already been set.  Were the actions of Eisenhower and Kennedy likewise illegal?

[mystery-ak]

Don't Pop the Champagne Just Yet - Bush Admin Alum Warns JB Pritzker Over SCOTUS Nat'l Guard Decision
Jennifer Oliver O'Connell


As RedState reported on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to issue a stay on a lower court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. RedState further reported that Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent, essentially saying that the courts were hindering the Trump administration from protecting federal officers.

As Bob Hoge wrote:

    As we reported on Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to stay a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. Many conservatives were outraged, complaining that since the advent of President Trump 2.0, judges at all levels have been doing everything in their power to kneecap his agenda. The Supreme Court has issued some favorable decisions along the way — but not this time.

    One person who was not amused was a Supreme Court justice himself: Justice Samuel Alito, and his dissent on the case doesn’t mince words about his displeasure with what he sees as "unwise" and "imprudent" determinations made by the 6-3 majority. In addition, Alito — not one known to hold back on his opinions — thought it improperly took power from the executive branch:

        The majority also did not give enough deference to Trump after the president found that agitators were hindering immigration officers and other federal personnel from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the National Guard needed to step in to help.

        "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.

https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2025/12/25/attorney-and-gw-bush-aag-warns-jb-pritzker-not-to-be-too-quick-taking-a-victory-lap-on-scotus-decision-n2197481

[mountaineer]

Don't Pop the Champagne Just Yet - Bush Admin Alum Warns JB Pritzker Over SCOTUS Nat'l Guard Decision

The sad thing is that Pritzker, Johnson, et al., really would (and do) celebrate the lawlessness, violence, crime and death in Chicago - out of spite for Trump.

[Smokin Joe]

Don't forget The Bonus Army:

AI spin:

The Bonus Army was a 1932 protest by thousands of World War I veterans demanding early payment of bonuses promised for their service, which they desperately needed during the Great Depression; their peaceful encampments in Washington, D.C., ended violently when President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to forcibly clear them out using tanks and tear gas...

More info at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army