* The Sun-Times…
President Donald Trump’s fight to deploy National Guard troops into American cities against the will of local elected officials has reached the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time — and Illinois is right in the middle of it.
Solicitor General John Sauer asked the high court Friday to intervene in Trump’s legal battle with Illinois and Chicago, seeking an order that would let Trump continue the deployment of hundreds of Illinois and Texas National Guard troops he triggered earlier this month.
Sauer told the justices that U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago “impermissibly” substituted her judgment for Trump’s on military matters and accepted an “implausibly rosy assessment” from state and local officials when she originally blocked the deployment Oct. 9.
Now, Sauer argued, the lives of federal officers have been jeopardized both by Perry’s order and Thursday’s ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that mostly kept it in place.
Click here to read Sauer’s emergency appeal.
* Capitol News Illinois’ Hannah Meisel…
The filing accused Perry of having “disregarded outright the evidence of violence proffered by federal officials” and “instead accepting the implausibly rosy assessment of state and local officials,” which he called “indefensible.” […]
The judge last week said the DOJ’s arguments — particularly its characterization of the protests she noted had never exceeded 200 people outside the ICE facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview — seemed to add to “a growing body of evidence that DHS’ version of events are unreliable.” She also gave credence to allegations that agents were often the aggressors in clashes with protesters and predicted that deploying the National Guard “will only add fuel to the fire that the defendants themselves have started.”
But on Friday, Sauer shot back that the judge’s ruling was part of “a disturbing and recurring pattern” that follows similar cases in Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.
In his telling, protestors in those Democratic strongholds put immigration agents at risk and obstructed their work while local law enforcement offered only “tepid support,” prompting the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard for the protection of agents and federal property. Sauer decried local federal judges’ rulings against the Trump administration after “local political leaders” filed lawsuits.
* The Tribune…
The Supreme Court asked lawyers for Illinois to respond by 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday. […]
The petition comes just a day after the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to grant a stay to Perry’s order, ruling her findings were not “clearly erroneous” and that “the facts do not justify” Trump’s actions in Illinois.
The three-judge appellate panel unanimously agreed with Perry that, even giving the president “great deference” when it comes to his power to call up the military, there was no evidence that he needed troops to help enforce immigration law or quell any kind of organized rebellion.
“The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority,” stated the opinion by Judges Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton and Amy St. Eve.
* The Hill…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul told The Hill in a statement that his office “remains steadfast” in its commitment to upholding the rule of law and will “vigorously” oppose the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the lower court’s decisions.
“As the district court and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals have affirmed, there is no need or lawful basis for troops to be deployed in the state of Illinois,” Raoul said.
* More…
* NBC | Trump asks Supreme Court to allow National Guard deployment in Illinois: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said in an X post after the Trump filing that he would continue to defend the sovereignty of his state. “Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy,” he added.
* NYT | Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow National Guard Deployment in Chicago Area: A protest does not “become a rebellion merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants in the protest,” the appeals court said. In addition, the judges pointed to the use of National Guard members from Texas as “an incursion on Illinois’s sovereignty.”
* Politico | Supreme Court gets first chance to weigh Trump’s bid to deploy National Guard: But courts have not ruled uniformly against Trump’s use of the National Guard. In June, the administration won orders from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing deployments in Los Angeles to continue. The Oregon judge’s ruling is also currently on appeal at the 9th Circuit. When a panel of that court heard arguments last week, a majority of the judges seemed inclined to allow the troops to be put on the street.
* AP | Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow deployment of National Guard in Chicago area: Eleven people were arrested at a Friday protest outside a U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview. Law enforcement had urged demonstrators to stay in designated “protest zones.” In recent weeks, the Broadview ICE facility has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 9:38 am:
The brief does not appear to address the feds credibility problem, specifically cited in Perry’s order. Judges are looking at the facts and finding the feds summaries to be exaggerated, overheated, and unreliable.
- TreeFiddy - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 9:47 am:
Assuming they’ll use shadow docket to allow deployment while this works through the courts. We’ve seen the appellate court overseeing the Oregon case lay the legal groundwork to allow this, with their judges (who just happen to be on short-list for future Trump SCOTUS appointments) arguing the president/executive branch should have major deference when deploying law enforcement to protect the well-being of Americans. They said the feds have the ability to know about threats that are not known to the public/local officials, which need to be weighed heavily into the potential deployment of troops.
- thechampaignlife - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:35 am:
Domestic military deployment for peacekeeping without the consent of the state should require a very high bar. As in, we have deployed a ridiculous amount of our federal law enforcement resources - FBI, ATF, DEA, Marshals, etc. - and still cannot enforce federal law due to violent, organized rebellion. Where are those federal law enforcement resources? Surely all other resources should be employed before the military is engaged.
- Keyrock - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:35 am:
Steve Vladeck’s Substack post explains why this shadow docket appeal may be make-or-break for the rule of law.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/184-the-massive-stakes-of-trump-v
- low level - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:39 am:
That is the biggest junk I have ever read. Chicago is safer than ever. Dumb Dumb Don just wants an excuse to put troops on the streets of a blue city. He hates Chicago.
- Montrose - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:40 am:
“Implausibly Rosy” should be Chicago’s new motto.
- former southerner - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:49 am:
From The Guardian this morning: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/20/military-veterans-arrested-injured-lawmakers-ice
- Norseman - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:50 am:
Perry was in the position of judging the evidence. The Trump DOJ is in the role of lying for the boss’ illegal tactics. I fear the MAGA SCOTUS will do what they’ve done before and reject the evidence and adopt the lies.
- No. 90368-509 - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:03 pm:
It sure looks like the Trump administration is purposefully creating a violent situation so they have an excuse to use the military for domestic purposes. Truly upsetting.
- JS Mill - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:15 pm:
=They said the feds have the ability to know about threats that are not known to the public/local officials, which need to be weighed heavily into the potential deployment of troops.=
Not that it matters to them anymore, but the law says otherwise.
- Jocko - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:35 pm:
==and still cannot enforce federal law due to violent, organized rebellion.==
Warrant? We don’t need no stinkin’ warrant (exclamation point) You can have your fourth and fifth amendment protections when we say so.
- Jilted - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:43 pm:
That is the biggest junk I have ever read. Chicago is safer than ever. Dumb Dumb Don just wants an excuse to put troops on the streets of a blue city. He hates Chicago
You walking alone on the,west or southside at 1am alone if its,so safe?
- low level - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:47 pm:
==You walking alone on the,west or southside at 1am alone if it’s,so safe?==
That’s why ICE is downtown and the yuppie north and south loop, right? I’m afraid you’ll have to do better next time.
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:52 pm:
“You walking alone on the,west or southside at 1am alone if its,so safe?”
I agree. Every location in America where something dangerous might occur at 1am should have ICE and National Guard deployed to it. If anyone complains about it, they hate America.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 12:54 pm:
We do not need the national guard or the military to enforce laws. No one is in rebellion. However I truly do not trust crime statistics
In fact I did not think many large cities were sending or the FBI was not using statistics sent in to them. And this happened before Trump. I think many people do not even bother to call police and especially now who would call if you are an immigrant? Of course homicides are probably somewhat accurate
- Chooch - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
The feds aren’t fighting crime in any way. They are kidnapping our friends, neighbors and co-workers.
- Retired SURS Employee - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:39 pm:
I know that people are going to say that I am overstating the danger; however, if the Supreme Court grants this “emergency appeal”, our Republic may not make it to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I say this, as a retired attorney who has briefed and argued over 100 cases in state and federal courts, including 3 cases in the US Supreme Court. The earlier post referencing Steve Vladeck’s substack post should be required reading for all concerned Americans.
- Walker - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:39 pm:
The unsubstantiated claim that there could be random potential threats to federal agents is not evidence of an insurrection or emergency sufficient to require Federal troops in Chicago. Not even close.
We either trust the evidence and the law, or we follow the “great leader.”
- AlrightAlrightAlright - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:47 pm:
I wish Rich would use his advance moderation skills to block commentators not from Chicago commenting on Chicago things.
People like low level should have no business opining on things they have no idea about.
No Chicago IP address, no posting.
And Rich, check the BACnet protocols while you are at it.
- JS Mill - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:47 pm:
=You walking alone on the,west or southside at 1am alone if its,so safe?=
I don’t spend a lot of time on the westside but I do on the southside and the answer is definitely yes. I would not be concerned.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 1:49 pm:
===I wish Rich would use his advance moderation skills to block commentators not from Chicago commenting on Chicago things. ===
Last I checked, Chicago was still in Illinois.
- Original Rambler - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:02 pm:
Larry Bowa spot on. This is big when it comes to executive authority.
- Incandenza - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:03 pm:
== They said the feds have the ability to know about threats that are not known to the public/local officials, which need to be weighed heavily into the potential deployment of troops. ==
So their legal argument is “trust me bro”? If that is considered a legal argument, you may as well just suspend the entire constitution and say “well the executive branch knows things not open to the public so they can do whatever they want whenever”
- Amalia - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:05 pm:
interesting that Richard Day’s Put Police Officers where the violence Is analysis is out while cases are moving along. The city is not doing it and the Feds surely would not do it if they win (as they surely will.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:20 pm:
From now on…only comment on the city where you reside…may be the least perceptive comment yet?
- Kenny Steele - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:44 pm:
It’s not an “unsubstantiated claim” that there have been threats against Federal Agents.
A suspect has been in custody for two weeks for putting a $10,000 bounty on the life of the Chief Of Border Patrol.
And just this weekend , a speaker at the No Kings rally who is an employee at Wilber Wright College , was caught on video calling for the assassination of Federal agents
- Mason County - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 2:51 pm:
This is getting old. Trump should just hang it up and be glad that he could not put in the NG which would have made a bad situation much worse. And could have easily boomeranged on him. If it does get worse then he can say “I told you so.” Sometimes it is better not to get what you think you want.
Yes, there is some minor violence but at least up to now it can easily be handled by the ISP and, if need be, more ICE personnel At least, so far.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:06 pm:
===It’s not an “unsubstantiated claim” that there have been threats against Federal Agents.===
OK, but it still doesn’t seem - in my mind - to rise to the need to bring in the military.
- Kenny Steele - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:19 pm:
We shall see but the 9th circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled the Feds could call up the National Guard in Portland.
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/20/nx-s1-5564797/ninth-circuit-decision-portland-national-guard-tro-president-trump
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:35 pm:
The Oregon court noted the major difference between Portland and the Chicago area. Portland facility shut down for three weeks. Not the case here
https://x.com/seidelcontent/status/1980353013224218738?s=46&t=kLYT7mZFDxsp34lIBY23gA
- low level - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:40 pm:
== I wish Rich would use his advance moderation skills to block commentators not from Chicago commenting on Chicago things.
People like low level should have no business opining on things they have no idea about.==
lol. I have lived in Chicago my entire life and am posting from Chicago. Rich knows me. Try harder.
- low level - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:49 pm:
In other words, as Rich used to say, bite me.
- Demoralized - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:51 pm:
==It’s not an “unsubstantiated claim” that there have been threats against Federal Agents.==
The feds have claimed there is a “rebellion” as justification for calling in the military. There is absolutely no “rebellion.” Why some of you are so “ho hum” about calling in the military is beyond me.
- Original Rambler - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 3:55 pm:
Regarding the difference, if the administration closes the facility and boards up the windows - whether justified or not - DJT gets to call up the NG? My guess is they’re considering it.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 4:12 pm:
=It’s not an “unsubstantiated claim” that there have been threats against Federal Agent
There are allegations. Much of what the feds initially claimed about the threats have not even made it into charges. DHS has repeatedly made claims that turn out to not have a factual basis and with Bovino that has occurred in both California and Illinois. None have reached trial yet and if the pattern holds, the cases will likely not be as advertised. I would not be shocked if there are threats to federal officers to be clear, but we don’t call out the military even when the President is threatened. Nor Congress as of late.
ICE & CBP (ICE even more so) are poorly run and have some of least qualified officers in the federal government. Their training and background requirements are now below what it even takes to be a sworn officer in Illinois and before they were about the same while taking on far more legally complicated cases.
- Nick Name - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 4:34 pm:
=== The Supreme Court asked lawyers for Illinois to respond by 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday===
It’s now 5:30 eastern. Is Illinois’ response available yet?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 4:37 pm:
===It’s now 5:30 eastern. Is Illinois’ response available yet?===
Yes, lol.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a443.html
- JS Mill - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 5:01 pm:
=It’s not an “unsubstantiated claim” that there have been threats against Federal Agents.=
You cite two allegations. 2. Even if true, and other claims like the lady they shot rammed her car into them when the video shows the opposite, have been widely proven false and in many (if not most cases) charges were either dropped or never filed.
Even if true yor. 2 cases are not a rebellion. If that was the case then Jan 6 was world war 3 as was the lead up. And don’t get me started on the NY young republicans. That was nothing short of all out civil war if 2 is a rebellion.
Anyone can make something up and say it to the media and that seems to be the new federal approach.
- Kenny Steele - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 5:29 pm:
The Brighton Park incident where the man and woman allegedly rammed their cars in ICE vehicles has absolutely not been “proven false”.
Maybe you should refrain from lectures about making things up.
The Federal trial is scheduled for February.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 5:59 pm:
The feds have not disputed that the defense’s characterization of the Brighton Park video taken by DHS so I’m confused how that is consistent with reality