Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge in Chicago on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois, dealing another setback to the administration’s sweeping effort to use military forces in U.S. cities under the banner of restoring order and protecting federal property.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge April M. Perry, an appointee of President Joe Biden, temporarily bars the Trump administration from federalizing or deploying the Illinois National Guard. It marks the second time in a week that a federal court has stopped Trump from sending troops into a major city, following a similar decision in Portland, Oregon.
The Justice Department is expected to appeal. In a separate hearing Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard arguments on the Portland case but did not immediately rule.
Judge questions “credibility” and scope of deployment
During Thursday’s hearing in Chicago, Perry repeatedly expressed doubts about the administration’s justification for federalizing state troops. She pressed Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton to explain the scope of the planned deployment, at one point saying she detected a “lack of credibility” in multiple federal declarations.
“I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” Perry said before issuing her ruling from the bench.
In her order, Perry wrote that the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois “is likely to lead to civil unrest,” siding with the state’s argument that Trump’s actions overstepped constitutional bounds.
Illinois officials, including Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, hailed the ruling as a victory for state sovereignty. Johnson called it “a win for the people of Chicago and the rule of law.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the president’s actions, saying Trump had “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets.” She said the administration would appeal, adding: “President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities, and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
A widening legal clash over presidential power
The dispute in Illinois stems from “Operation Midway Blitz,” an immigration enforcement initiative launched by the Trump administration in early September to target undocumented immigrants and violent protests around Chicago’s federal facilities.
Illinois officials sued the federal government earlier this week, alleging the operation amounted to an “unprecedented intrusion” on state sovereignty. The lawsuit said sending National Guard troops into Illinois violated federal law and the constitutional balance of power between state and federal governments.
Federal lawyers argued that troops were needed to protect immigration agents from what they called “ongoing and sustained attacks.” Perry, however, suggested that the federal presence itself might be escalating tensions, saying evidence indicated “the very presence of federal agents” was contributing to violence.
Similar battle playing out in Portland
In Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee, last weekend blocked the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops, writing that “this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” Immergut said the administration’s justification for deploying troops was “untethered to the facts,” noting that protests in the city had been “generally peaceful” in recent weeks.
When the administration moved to send California National Guard members to Portland instead, Immergut issued a second order blocking that move as well.
At the 9th Circuit hearing Thursday, Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur argued that Immergut’s ruling wrongly focused on the most recent protests rather than months of earlier violence. “The president is entitled to say ‘Enough is enough’ and bring in the National Guard,” McArthur said.
Oregon’s attorney general’s office countered that conditions in Portland no longer warranted a military response. “There’s a big difference between the situation in June and what we saw in late September,” Assistant Attorney General Stacy M. Chaffin said.
The appellate panel, which includes two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee, gave no indication when it would issue a decision.
Broader pattern of judicial pushback
The Chicago and Portland rulings are part of a broader pattern of legal resistance to Trump’s domestic use of military forces. Federal judges have also ruled against similar troop deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., finding that they likely violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from engaging in law enforcement.
Trump, who has defended the deployments as necessary to curb violent protests and protect federal facilities, has described cities such as Chicago as “crime-ridden” and “lawless.” But crime statistics show homicides and shootings have fallen sharply in recent years.
While the administration insists its actions are lawful, judges and local officials from multiple states have signaled growing unease with the president’s interpretation of his powers. As Perry wrote from the bench, “This court will not permit an unchecked expansion of executive authority under the guise of public safety.”
