Supreme Court keeps block on National Guard deployment in Chicago

0:25National Guard members walk at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Broadview facility in Chicago, October 9, 2025. Jeenah Moon/Reuters

The Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump's appeal to overturn a lower court order that blocks his decision to send National Guard troops to Chicago and throughout Illinois to assist with immigration enforcement activities.

In an unsigned ruling on Tuesday, the court stated simply that the president has "failed to pinpoint a source of authority that would permit the military to enforce the laws in Illinois."

This decision, likely made by a 6-3 margin, continues to obstruct the administration’s effort to deploy 300 Illinois National Guard members to Chicago to aid federal immigration agents and safeguard federal assets while litigation is ongoing.

It also raises questions about the legality of Trump’s current and future National Guard deployments in other states as part of his broader immigration enforcement strategy. (Legal experts noted that the deployment in Washington, D.C., is probably unaffected by this ruling due to the unique status of the federal district.)

National Guard members walk at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Broadview facility in Chicago, October 9, 2025.Jeenah Moon/Reuters

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch expressed dissent.

The White House stated that nothing in today's ruling "detracts" from Trump's primary goals of safeguarding federal personnel and enforcing immigration regulations.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson remarked in a statement regarding the ruling, "[Trump] mobilized the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officials and to prevent rioters from damaging federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling undermines that central agenda."

Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker commended the court’s judgment.

"This is a significant advancement in limiting the Trump Administration’s ongoing misuse of power and impeding Trump’s progression toward authoritarianism," Pritzker stated in a series of posts on X. "American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to endure masked federal agents demanding their identification, judging them based on their appearance or speech, and living in dread that the President can send the military to their streets."

The court’s ruling hinged on the interpretation of a single phrase in Section 12406 of the federal code, which stipulates that a president can deploy members of a state’s National Guard when he is "unable with the regular forces to enforce the laws of the United States."

Attorneys for the Trump administration contended that "regular forces" encompass federal law enforcement personnel — such as DHS and ICE agents — who required additional support in Chicago to enforce the laws.

However, a majority of the court’s members concluded that "regular forces" likely refers to active-duty military, which can only be legally utilized domestically in a limited set of situations, such as suppressing insurrections.

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, December 10, 2025.Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

"Before the President can federalize the Guard," the court indicated, "he likely must possess statutory or constitutional authority to enforce the laws with the regular military and must be 'unable' with those forces to fulfill that function."

In essence: Because Trump had not initially lawfully deployed regular military to assist law enforcement, he had no grounds to deploy the Guard, at least according to the federal law he cited, the court noted.

Sourse: abcnews.go.com