BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area in support of its immigration enforcement efforts, dealing a notable setback to the president’s push to send military forces into U.S. cities governed by Democrats.
The justices rejected an emergency request from the Republican administration seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that barred the deployment. The decision leaves in place an order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who concluded that the administration lacked the legal authority to use troops in Illinois for the purpose described. A federal appeals court had also refused to intervene, and the Supreme Court took more than two months to issue its response.
The court’s order was not a final ruling on the broader legality of such deployments, but it is expected to influence similar lawsuits challenging the administration’s use of military forces in other cities. Three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — publicly dissented from 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’s majority wrote, signaling skepticism toward the administration’s justification for the deployment.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with keeping the Chicago deployment blocked for now, but indicated he would have left the president more flexibility to deploy troops under different circumstances in the future.
The ruling marks a relatively rare loss for President Donald Trump before the Supreme Court during his second term. Since returning to office in January, Trump has frequently prevailed in emergency appeals, with the conservative-majority court allowing his administration to take aggressive steps on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to federal spending and the restructuring of independent agencies. The court has also backed the administration on controversial policies such as banning transgender people from military service.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker welcomed the decision, calling it a victory for both the state and the nation. He said the ruling reaffirmed limits on presidential power and protected communities from what he described as unnecessary militarization.
“American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to face masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that the president can deploy the military to their streets,” Pritzker said.
The White House sharply disagreed with that characterization. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the administration’s actions were aimed at protecting federal personnel and property, not intimidating residents.
“The president activated the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property from violent rioters,” Jackson said. “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”
In their dissents, Justices Alito and Thomas argued that the court had no valid basis to reject the administration’s claim that troops were needed to help enforce immigration laws. Justice Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government, citing sworn statements from federal law enforcement officials describing security concerns.
The administration initially sought approval to deploy National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas to the Chicago area. However, the Texas contingent of about 200 troops was later sent home, leaving the legal dispute focused on Illinois-based forces.
Trump administration lawyers have argued that the deployments are necessary “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Judge Perry, however, found little evidence to support claims that Illinois was facing a situation akin to rebellion or insurrection. She wrote that protests in the state had not significantly interfered with federal immigration operations.
Perry first blocked the deployment for two weeks, then extended the order indefinitely in October while the Supreme Court considered the administration’s request.
Tensions have been particularly high around an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview, where repeated protests have drawn large crowds. In past demonstrations, federal agents have used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists. Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters outside the facility, and officials said four officers were injured. Local law enforcement carried out those arrests.
The Illinois case is one front in a broader national legal fight over the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard domestically. In Washington, D.C., Attorney General Brian Schwalb is seeking to block the deployment of more than 2,000 guardsmen sent to the capital earlier this year. That case has drawn filings from 45 states, with 23 backing the administration and 22 supporting the challenge.
Although Trump declared a crime emergency in Washington in August, that declaration expired a month later. Still, more than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in the city.
Courts in other states have also pushed back. A federal judge in Oregon permanently blocked a Guard deployment there, and all 200 California troops sent to Oregon are being returned home, according to officials. In Tennessee, a state court sided with Democratic leaders who challenged an ongoing deployment in Memphis, which Trump has described as a model for his approach to Washington.
In California, a judge ruled in September that the National Guard deployment in the Los Angeles area was unlawful. By the time of that ruling, only about 300 of the thousands of troops initially sent there remained, and the court did not order their immediate withdrawal.
The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon decisions to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for further legal battles over the limits of presidential power and the use of military forces within U.S. cities.
Original article
Comments