Supreme Court Just Ruled on Trump's Use of National Guard In This Blue State
The Supreme Court on Sunday rejected the Trump administration’s request to lift an injunction on his deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.
The ruling comes amid a court battle between the White House and the State of Illinois over the use of the National Guard to reduce crime in cities like Chicago.
The court acknowledged an incident that occurred at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview in which federal officers faced “frequent and sometimes violent protests, damaging federal property and threatening the safety of federal officers.”
In response, President Donald Trump “called 300 members of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, particularly in and around Chicago.”
The question centers on what “regular forces” means in the administration’s argument in favor of the deployments. The court held that the way the term is used in federal law likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military, not civilian officers like ICE agents. Since the statute “requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws.”
The court argued that Trump has not identified any statute or constitutional authority that would allow the military to legally “execute the laws” in Illinois in this particular situation.
🚨 In an apparent 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court has BLOCKED President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Illinois, denying the government’s application for a stay.
Justice Alito dissents joined by Thomas. Gorsuch dissents. Kavanaugh concurs. pic.twitter.com/JLfpjbaNxb— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) December 23, 2025
The court noted that there is an inconsistency between what the Trump administration claimed at its justification for using the National Guard and what the law actually allows. The White House claimed Trump was using his own constitutional power to “protect federal personnel and property,” but the government has long held that these “protective functions” are not the same as “execut[ing] the laws.”
“If that is correct, it is hard to see how performing those functions could constitute ‘execut[ing]’ the laws’ under” federal statute. This means the government “has not carried its burden to show that §12406(3) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” which is why the court rejected the administration’s request.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. They argued that the court’s new reading of the law “adds new language to the text Congress enacted” and wrongly limiits the president’s ability to use the National Guard in this manner.
The dissenters cautioned that the president’s authority “should not be thwarted” when “the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks” is at stake.
Gorsuch indicated he “would decide this application narrowly” and shy away from sweeping rulings about the president’s power to use the National Guard. He cautioned that this case raises “weighty questions” about “the relationship between the Guard, the regular military, and domestic law enforcement” that the court should handle carefully going forward.
The case comes as a result of Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement. Amid anti-ICE protests occurring all over the country, the White House has stepped up its efforts to combat threats to federal agents.
The administration argues that these moves are necessary to protecting federal agents and allowing them to apprehend and deport dangerous illegal immigrants. But critics contend that these moves are unconstitutional overkill.
The debate centers on whether a president should have the authority to send in the military to address crime and to protect federal agents. In other cities, President Trump has claimed credit for falling crime rates, stating that his use of the military precipitated the decline.
However, crime rates in major cities were already on a downward trend. My tinfoil hat theory is that Trump saw dropping crime rates and took these actions to make it appear as if they resulted from his “tough on crime” approach.
If I’m right, then it’s a clever political move. Unfortunately, this is not how the military is supposed to be used. When the U.S. was created, it was agreed that troops should not be used on American soil for law enforcement purposes.
The Posse Comitatus Act limited use of the military to situations in which there is widespread civil unrest that is threatening public safety. Regardless of what one believes about the backlash to the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda, it’s clear these protests do not rise to the level of requiring military intervention.
I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t predict how the Supreme Court might ultimately rule on this matter if it comes up again. But for now, at least it has chosen to limit the president’s authority to use National Guard troops for a show.
Jeff, if you agree with the SCOTUS decision, then how is the President suppose to protect Federal Agents when they are harassed and attacked while carrying out Federal law? Especially when the State or city political apparatus is against them and law enforcement is directed to stand down. I ask b/c I do not have an answer so I was good with the deployment of National Guard troops.