Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Posted in:
* 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…
* 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.
posted by Isabel Miller
Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 9:28 am
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
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.
Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 9:38 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.
Comment by TreeFiddy Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 9:47 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.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:35 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.
Comment by low level Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:39 am
“Implausibly Rosy” should be Chicago’s new motto.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:40 am
From The Guardian this morning: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/20/military-veterans-arrested-injured-lawmakers-ice
Comment by former southerner Monday, Oct 20, 25 @ 10:49 am