Supreme Court rejects Trump's bid to deploy National Guard in Illinois

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: NBC

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed the Trump administration over its plan to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois over the strenuous objections of local officials.

The court in an unsigned order turned away an emergency request made by the administration, which said the troops are needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area.

In doing so, the court at least provisionally rejected the Trump administration’s view that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations.

Those circumstances can include when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Among the issues in the case is what the term “regular forces” means, something the Supreme Court focused on in an order issued on Oct. 29 asking for additional briefing. The question is whether the law only allows for the National Guard to be called up if regular military forces are unable to restore order, or whether the phrase refers to law enforcement.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-deploy-national-guard-illinois-rcna238630

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Was about to hit "post"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. It is extremely rare when I manage to beat you

I truly appreciate your efforts.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I was in the middle of washing up stuff from making cookie dough

and a breaking from AP beeped in (to my Apple watch), so tried to get to the machine and find the article and... and... Too late!

And appreciate your adding all the great context to the legal side!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Here is a link to the ruling

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

6. This looks like a 6-3

with the Boobsey Twins Alito and Thomas in dissent with Gorsuch, but the rest agreeing.

So shouldn't that apply to every other damn place he put troops (except D.C.)????

[Septua]

5. "In doing so, the court at least provisionally REJECTED the Trump administration's view...

..that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations."

It's about fu*king time...

[popsdenver]

14. What about the USSC

doing immediately the same thing in New Orleans or any other States????????????????

[Takket]

7. can't believe i'd ever be saying this but

I'm genuinely shocked and pleased that SCOTUS has disallowed this attempt at turning armed forces against the American people.

on another note, if he's losing a case like this on these grounds, it does not bode well for his inevitable plans to use the insurrection act to overthrow the 2026 election.

[Journeyman]

10. Precisely. If he can't mobilize the Guard against imagined acts of insurrection in the streets . . .

he'd be stymied even more to mobilize them against actual acts of democracy in the polls.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. From Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker:

[RussBLib]

9. What?! The SCOTUS said, "No, Donny!!"?

This could be quite big.

Can't wait to hear Donny cuss out the SCOTUS.

https://russblib.blogspot.com

[TomSlick]

11. I wish I wasn't shocked by SCOTUS issuing a reasonable opinion.

Even Kavanaugh's concurrence was just a plea for not deciding issues unnecessary to decide the case. Mind you, he had to construct a fantastical hypothetical to make his point, but still.

[Callie1979]

12. Dear Leader will NOT be pleased. Screw him

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. 'Hugely consequential': Experts say Supreme Court just wrecked Trump's plans

I admit that I was surprised by this ruling. SCOTUS may be waking up as to trump's misuse of the military.

'Hugely consequential': Experts say Supreme Court just wrecked Trump's plans

www.rawstory.com/supreme-cour...

— Michael Byron #Fella (@michaelby.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T02:30:22.213Z

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2674826050/

President Donald Trump got a rare and devastating blow at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as three right-wing justices joined with the three liberals to deny a stay of a lower court ruling that prevents him from federalizing the National Guard to deploy troops to Chicago — and said the administration is unlikely to prevail when the case is litigated on the merits.....

"The Supreme Court just agreed: President Trump violated the law by deploying the National Guard in Illinois," wrote New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin. "Proud to stand with @ILAttyGeneral [and] my colleagues in successfully opposing this unnecessary and unlawful deployment."

Yet another key analysis came from American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer who has frequently criticized the Trump administration's immigration policy.

"Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision. This is a case where [law professor] Marty Lederman's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the 'regular forces' issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. "The law Trump used to federalize the National Guard requires him to be 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The Court today agrees with Professor Lederman that 'regular forces' means the U.S. military, which used to be called 'the regulars.'"

"There are other laws which permit the President to call up the National Guard, the most famous of which is the Insurrection Act. But Trump has not invoked that law. Instead, he invoked a law which had strict prerequisites, which the Supreme Court ruled were not met," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. Additionally, "the majority finds at this stage that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property, therefore allowing him to 'execute' the laws with the military. The majority says no."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. Everyone keeps calling this a Christmas miracle but technically it's a Festivus miracle, iykyk

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Two late Trump court defeats 'could make a big difference in 2026': analyst

Maybe SCOTUS is not going to give trump everything he wants

Two late Trump court defeats 'could make a big difference in 2026': analyst

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2025-12-26T20:01:22.528Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-cpourt-loss/

Two significant legal setbacks for Donald Trump's administration are likely to have substantial implications as the president enters 2026.

According to former White House correspondent Brian Karem, the Trump administration's winning streak with the conservative Supreme Court ended abruptly when the court blocked the president's attempt to deploy the National Guard to cities on a whim and as a show of force. A separate defeat came when a federal court rejected administration efforts to revoke security clearances from Trump critics.....

The Supreme Court's ruling represented a rare rebuke of the administration. Trump had argued in an October appeal that violence directed at Department of Homeland Security agents conducting immigration enforcement operations in Chicago justified deploying the National Guard.

"The conservative Supreme Court didn’t buy it," he wrote.

According to the decision, "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 court noted there was no legal basis for overriding the Posse Comitatus Act, which severely restricts the use of U.S. military forces within the United States.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. NYT-How a Scholar Nudged the Supreme Court Toward Its Troop Deployment Ruling (gift article)

Accepting an argument from a law professor that no party to the case had made, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a stinging loss that could lead to more aggressive tactics.

Liptak on @martylederman.bsky.social:

How a Scholar Nudged the Supreme Court Toward Its Troop Deployment Ruling www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/u...

— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T19:01:57.935Z

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/us/politics/georgetown-scholar-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1._k8.vc9P.EHaUTNZ4QxmF&smid=nytcore-android-share

The Supreme Court’s refusal on Tuesday to let the Trump administration deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area was in large part the result of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by a Georgetown University law professor named Martin S. Lederman.

The argument Professor Lederman set out, and the court’s embrace of it, could help shape future rulings on any further efforts by President Trump to use the military to carry out his orders inside the United States.

Professor Lederman’s brief said that the government had misunderstood a key phrase in the law it had relied on, which allows deployment of the National Guard if “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”.....

A veteran of the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department unit that advises the executive branch on the law, Professor Lederman identified what he called a glaring flaw in the administration’s argument. “None of the parties were paying attention to it,” he said.

But the justices were. A week after Professor Lederman filed his brief, the court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs on the issue he had spotted. They did, and almost two months passed.

In the end, the majority adopted the professor’s argument, over the dissents of the three most conservative justices. It was the Trump administration’s first major loss at the court in many months. During that time, the court granted about 20 emergency requests claiming broad presidential power in all sorts of other settings.

The administration said “the regular forces” referred to civilian law enforcement like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Professor Lederman argued that the great weight of historical evidence was to the contrary.

I am sorry but the law geek in me was amused by the fact that this law professor pointed out a key argument that resulted in the SCOTUS ruling. I will be looking forward to the briefs in this case to be filed later.