Supreme Court Seeks Additional Briefs in Dispute Over Trump’s National Guard Deployment to Chicago
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration and Illinois officials to submit more detailed briefs in a high-stakes legal battle over President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to deploy National Guard troops near Chicago for immigration enforcement support. The move delays any immediate ruling, keeping a lower court block in place and signaling the justices’ scrutiny of the president’s authority to federalize state militia amid protests.
The deployment, announced earlier this month, involves roughly 300 Illinois National Guard members and 400 from Texas stationed outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing center in Broadview, a Chicago suburb. Trump justified the action by citing “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance” from protesters that he said was obstructing federal immigration operations, invoking a rarely used statute (10 U.S.C. § 12406) that allows the president to call up the Guard when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson swiftly challenged the order, arguing it violates federal law and the 10th Amendment by bypassing state control without evidence of a true emergency. U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago issued a temporary block on October 10, ruling that the administration failed to show it had exhausted “regular forces”—interpreted by the court as the standing U.S. military—before turning to the Guard. “The President must be incapable with the regular forces—that is, lacking the power and force with the military alone—to execute the law,” Perry wrote in her opinion.
A unanimous three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the block on October 25, noting that while protests have caused sporadic disruptions, “immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace” and the facility remains fully operational. The appeals court, featuring judges appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama, and Reagan, emphasized there was “insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws.”
The Trump administration fired back with an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on October 17, leaning on a 1827 precedent, Martin v. Mott, which generally bars courts from second-guessing a president’s call-up of the militia. In its filing, the Justice Department argued that “regular forces” should encompass federal law enforcement like ICE agents, not just active-duty troops, allowing the Guard to step in for protective roles without direct law enforcement. Officials stressed the troops would only safeguard federal property and personnel, not perform arrests.
But the Supreme Court’s order zeroes in on that very phrase: “regular forces.” The justices directed both sides to address whether it exclusively means the U.S. military’s standing components, as argued in an amicus brief by Georgetown Law professor Martin Lederman, or extends to civilian agencies. Initial briefs are due November 10, with replies by November 17—pushing any decision past mid-month and ensuring the deployment remains halted in the interim.
Legal experts see the request as a potential setback for the White House. “This certainly seems like a bad sign for President Trump,” said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, noting that at least five justices appear unconvinced by the administration’s broad reading of the law. The order follows a similar friend-of-the-court filing by Lederman, who contended the statute limits Guard use to bolstering active military, not civilian operations.
This Chicago case is one thread in a wider tapestry of Trump-era military mobilizations. The president has pledged or enacted Guard deployments in Portland, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., framing them as bulwarks against unrest tied to immigration crackdowns. A related appeal in Portland is set for rehearing by the full 9th Circuit, while federal judges in other districts have questioned the deployments’ justifications under the Posse Comitatus Act, which curbs military involvement in domestic policing.
For Americans, the stakes ripple beyond the Windy City. A Supreme Court green light could expand executive power to quash protests nationwide, raising alarms about federal overreach in blue states and straining civil liberties amid heated immigration debates. Conversely, upholding the block might embolden local leaders to resist federal directives, potentially slowing enforcement in a politically divided nation where immigration remains a flashpoint.
Public reaction on social media has been swift and polarized. On X (formerly Twitter), users shared headlines with comments ranging from “SCOTUS even considering this is the real red flag” to defenses of Trump’s “law and order” stance. Legal news outlets like Law.com amplified the story, drawing thousands of views as attorneys debate the precedent’s reach.
As briefs roll in next week, the nine justices’ forthcoming order could redefine the guardrails on presidential muscle at home—leaving the troops on standby and the nation watching closely.