Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
A federal judge said she is partially granting the state’s request to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard units in the Chicago area as part of an immigration enforcement action.
After hearing arguments from lawyers representing the state and the Justice Department, U.S. District Judge April Perry said she will grant “in part” a state request for a temporary restraining order against troop deployment.
Perry said her decision comes down to a “credibility determination.”
“I simply cannot credit [the Trump administration’s] declarations to the extent they contradict state and local law enforcement,” Perry said. “[The Department of Homeland Security’s] perception of events [is] simply unreliable.”
* This ruling marks three loses for the Feds this week. Tina Sfondeles…
Asked how the TRO affects National Guard already in Illinois, Illinois AG Kwame Raoul says, “There's a temporary restraining order that they should not be active within the state of Illinois.” Asked if they should leave, he said it’s up to the defendants “to abide by the order.” pic.twitter.com/vqu1wAvUvS
— Tina Sfondeles (@TinaSfon) October 9, 2025
* More from the Tribune’s Jason Meisner…
Perry says a rebellion is "a deliberate organized resistance openly opposing the laws and government as a whole" by means of armed violence.
"I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois."— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) October 9, 2025
Judge Perry will issue a written ruling tomorrow.
Loss #1: Federal judge limits ICE arrests without warrant, probable cause
Loss #2: Judge rules Feds can’t pepper-spray, tear-gas journalists after Block Club Chicago and others sue
…Adding… The TRO…
Here is the TRO issued by Judge April Perry tonight: pic.twitter.com/EkYrrKZHUr
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) October 9, 2025
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 5:49 pm
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Inquiring minds are curious about what “partly” means?
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 5:56 pm
===Inquiring minds are curious about what “partly” means?===
AG Raoul said the TRO applies to the National Guard only. There are other defendant parties in the lawsuit, such as DHS, ect., that the TRO does not apply to. Makes sense given all the named parties in the lawsuit that the TRO would apply “in part” to the National Guard and not everyone else.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 6:08 pm
Read the order and am still perplexed on the partly comment.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 6:20 pm
I think the “partly” has to do with the footnote that does not show up in Jason Meisner’s screencap but does in this one.
https://x.com/SeidelContent/status/1976423797248098807
I am confused by the judge’s unexplained decision not to enjoin Trump and the practical ramifications of that.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 7:42 pm
Raoul: Asked if they should leave, he said it’s up to the defendants “to abide by the order.”
Very wise statement.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:03 pm
@ Norseman
I would not be surprised if the “partial” implies the DOJ has a few days to appeal.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:06 pm
@ H-W -
Of course they can appeal, but the order specifically denied the DOJ’s motion to stay pending appeal.
The “partial” likely refers to the fact that she did not make any ruling on the constitutionality of the feds’ actions, nor did she vacate the Federalization and Mobilization orders.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:10 pm
The courtroom is a lonely place to lie.
Comment by Barnaby Wilde Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:29 pm
Thanks 3D. Makes sense.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:53 pm
Fly the W
Comment by Michael McLean Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 8:59 pm
Curious to see what’s next. An appeals court handling the Oregon case basically ripped the lower court’s ruling barring the deployment of troops in Portland, saying the President/Executive has wide discretion in the use of law enforcement and taking steps to protect Americans. Feels like the groundwork the SC will use in a few weeks/months to allow the deployment of troops in blue cities.
Comment by Treefiddy Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 9:17 pm
@ JoanP
Thanks.
@ Treefiddy
And yet there is no evidence that crime is out of control, nor evidence of riots, nor evidence of threats to federal property, nor threats to federal agents.
Manufacturing an emergency to justify to justify declaring “insurrection” requires evidence of an insurrection. Trump can’t even show an emergency exists.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 9:40 pm
==Feels like the groundwork the SC will use in a few weeks/months to allow the deployment of troops in blue cities.==
Perhaps, but so far SCOTUS has allowed the Trump admin to carry on without making any rulings on the merits of the cases. It will be interesting to see how they rule when they are no longer on the “shadow docket” and cases are laid out and argued. By that time, there will be a lot more evidence of false premises and mischaracterizations presented by the Trump admin. It is my hope that the Supremes will start to block the admin at some point.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Oct 9, 25 @ 9:48 pm