The U.S. Supreme Court refused the Trump administration’s request to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, marking a rare judicial setback for President Trump in his use of federal military authority. The Court’s action upholds lower court rulings that blocked the federal deployment and raises constitutional questions about presidential power under federal statute and the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined the Trump administration’s emergency application to send National Guard troops to the Chicago area to support federal immigration enforcement operations, leaving in place a decision by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment. Appeals courts also refused to intervene before the high court weighed in.
In a brief opinion issued without full merits briefing, the majority found that the federal government “failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” signaling that the administration did not show legal justification for federalizing National Guard forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.
Three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch — dissented, indicating sharp disagreement within the Court over the limits of presidential power. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with keeping the block in place but suggested presidents should retain broader authority in some future circumstances.
The legal dispute centers on whether the president can call up National Guard members under federal service to enforce federal law inside a state, especially when state officials oppose the deployment. The Trump administration argued the situation in Chicago justified federalization under statutory authority, but the justices declined to reinstate the deployment at this stage of litigation.
This ruling comes amid multiple legal fights over the use of federal troops and the National Guard in American cities. Courts in Oregon and Washington, D.C. have reached mixed decisions in recent weeks on similar deployments, reflecting deep disagreements over federal authority versus states’ rights and civil liberties.
