File photo

 

In a significant setback for US President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court has blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents. In their decision, the justices stated that the government lacked the necessary authority to use the military for this purpose at this stage. Conservative Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch voiced their dissent against the ruling.

 

A legal challenge arose over Trump's attempt to federalise the National Guard, arguing that it was necessary when regular forces were insufficient. His administration sought clarity on the term "regular forces," questioning whether it included federal agents like those in ICE. The court interpreted "regular forces" as the standing military, implying that the law did not support Trump's action to protect ICE agents.

 

Justice Kavanaugh, who supported the court’s decision on narrower grounds, agreed with the interpretation of "regular forces" as the US military. He highlighted potential implications for future crises. Justice Alito, among others, criticised the decision, saying it undermined the president's constitutional authority to protect federal officers.

 

Despite easing tensions at a Chicago ICE facility, the Trump administration continued to press the need for deployment. The Supreme Court's decision, following months of deliberation, puts a spotlight on presidential power and National Guard use. Recent events, including a National Guard shooting in Washington, added urgency to the case. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit previously upheld a decision blocking the deployment, which the administration deemed as compromising presidential authority.

 

Legal nuances surrounding federal law enforcement support complicated the Supreme Court's deliberation. Historically, as seen in the 1827 Martin v. Mott case, the court granted presidents discretionary powers during emergencies, but states have contested the equivalence of current protests to wartime threats, reported CNN.

 

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court blocks Trump's attempt to use the National Guard in Chicago.
• Justices debated presidential authority and federal law interpretive nuances.
• Tensions at the Chicago ICE facility have eased, affecting the urgency of deployment.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-12-24

 

 

 

Unattributed post removed 

 

@jerrymahoney

Statement from Governor Pritzker on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Trump v. Illinois
December 24, 2025

 

CHICAGO — 

 

“Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy. I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration's consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.

 

“While we welcome this ruling, we also are clear-eyed that the Trump Administration’s pursuit for unchecked power is continuing across the country. Illinois will remain vigilant, defend the rights of our people, and stand up to further abuses of authority by Donald Trump and his cronies.”

 

https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/statement-from-governor-pritzker-on-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-trump-v-illinois

Too bad.  Chicago needs cleaning up.  The Guard would be welcomed by many that live there.

It's Christmas so no 'Truth Social' rant from Mr. Trump. Forgedabout Chicago.  2 of his 3 first  term SCOTUS Justice appointments voted against him and that ain't supposed to happen.

Conservative Judges' dilemma is that whenever they vote to approve Trump's decisions, they de facto authorise the next Dem President (whenever that happens) to do the same.....🙂

Chicago deserves it's downward spiral.  As do all the sanctuary cities & states.  I would suspend all federal funding to those states.  Let them sue, and drag it out in court as long a possible.  They voted for the dumps they've become, let the city & states pay for their mess.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Chicago deserves it's downward spiral.  As do all the sanctuary cities & states.  I would suspend all federal funding to those states.  Let them sue, and drag it out in court as long a possible.  They voted for the dumps they've become, let the city & states pay for their mess.

That's the way to go. We don't like them, defund them. Didn't you state in another thread that Obama was divisive?

He wont like that.

Expect the usual tirade of childish abuse directed at the Supreme Court now.

59 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That's the way to go. We don't like them, defund them. Didn't you state in another thread that Obama was divisive?

 

You don't enforce Fed law, you get Fed funding.  Pretty simple, not divisive, just enforcing the law.  Why I lost respect for SCOTUS a long time ago*** 

 

What happens if you show up at work, and decide not to do anything, will you get paid ?

Same principle in my eyes.

 

***When 'they', SCOTUS justices, changed ACA clause for a fine, to a tax, if not buying health insurance.  That violated the 'Commerce Clause' (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution), and the 10th Amendment.

 

Should have been sent back to be rewritten, not changed by the justices.  That is not in the scope of the power.

From the (actual) Supreme Court ruling:

 

We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an
issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties’
initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term “regular
forces” in §12406(3). 

 

In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service.
Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the
term refers to the regular forces of the United States military.
 

We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3)
likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States."

(their italics)

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_ba7d.pdf

Chill ICE!

So someone gives  a thumbs-down to an actual Supreme Court ruling --I guess, as we all know, the SCOTUS is NOT supposed to rule against Trump. Ever. Makes me think of that 1970's margarine commercial:

 

 "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!" 

________________________

But since it's the holidays and the only official White House response to the Chicago SCOTUS ruling was : Well Fiddle Dee Dee, I will post here,  as Rush Limbaugh used to say, the Encore Presentation of the last adverse ruling for Trump and his response:

On 12/24/2025 at 3:48 PM, KhunLA said:

Chicago deserves it's downward spiral.  As do all the sanctuary cities & states.  I would suspend all federal funding to those states.  Let them sue, and drag it out in court as long a possible.  They voted for the dumps they've become, let the city & states pay for their mess.

Agree!

 

Last time Chicago had a GOP mayor was 1931,almost 1 hundred years ago.

They ain't changing, take away the federal funds.Let the lefts billionaires support Mayhem.

 

Google Ai overview:

"As of late December 2025, there have been approximately 402 homicides in Chicago in 2025 alone".

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

Agree!

 

Last time Chicago had a GOP mayor was 1931,almost 1 hundred years ago.

They ain;t changing, take away the federal funds.Let the lefts billionaires support Mayhem.

 

Google Ai overview:

"As of late December 2025, there have been approximately 402 homicides in Chicago in 2025 alone".

 

I guess Citizen's Lives don't Matter 

And they keep re-electing idiots 

 

"Tensions at the Chicago ICE facility have eased, affecting the urgency of deployment"

The detention facility  got  noticed by a judge a while back ! The judge enacted protest hours and barriers where the leftist who support foreign national  criminals detained there can protest behind "Jersey barriers" instead of standing in the road & blocking ICE Enforcement vehicles from leaving & entering. Also the Illinois state police have been on duty supervising the facilities outside .

Without this it would be  leftist mayhem , that has been tolerated to to long. 

1 minute ago, riclag said:

"Tensions at the Chicago ICE facility have eased, affecting the urgency of deployment"

The detention facility  got  noticed by a judge a while back ! The judge enacted protest hours and barriers where the leftist who support foreign national  criminals detained there can protest behind "Jersey barriers" instead of standing in the road & blocking ICE Enforcement vehicles from leaving & entering. Also the Illinois state police have been on duty supervising the facilities outside .

Without this it would be  leftist mayhem , that has been tolerated to to long. 

So you agree that there is no need for the national guard in Chicago anymore?

Now he can send in the marines. Well played Democrats. Of course none of this would be necessary if blue states and cities cooperated in enforcing immigration law,

9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Now he can send in the marines.

AI via Gemini

 

What about the Marines?
To send in the Marines or other active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement, the President would typically need to invoke the Insurrection Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling specifically pointed out that the administration had not invoked that act or identified any other legal exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that would allow for a military deployment in this instance.

 

In short, the ruling was a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to use federalized troops in U.S. cities, as it reinforced the strict legal barriers against using the military for domestic policing

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

To send in the Marines or other active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement, the President would typically need to invoke the Insurrection Act.

It's not for law enforcement. It's to protect federal personnel and property.

From the ruling linked above:

 

Thus, at least in this posture, 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. We need not and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the President under §12406(3) or any other statute.
 

The application for stay is denied.
 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment

17 hours ago, dinsdale said:

It's not for law enforcement. It's to protect federal personnel and property.

From the post above:

 

We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3)
likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States."

(their italics) my bold

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the post above:

 

We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3)
likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States."

(their italics) my bold

As I said it opens the door for sending in the Marines.

58 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

As I said it opens the door for sending in the Marines.

As I see it, the door was always open to send in the Marines. The admin doesn't want to send in the Marines -- it wants to use he Guard. From the ruling linked above:

 

As I (Justice Kavanaugh) read it, the (IL District) Court’s opinion does not address the President’s authority under the Insurrection Act. See 10 U. S. C. §§252, 253.

 

Moreover, the Court’s opinion does not address or purport to disturb the President’s long-asserted Article II authority to use the U. S. military (as distinct from the National Guard) to protect federal personnel and property and thereby ensure the execution of federal law. 

 

 

So what happens now with trump v Illinois Supreme Court not giving stay?

 

Answer from Gemini:

 

Trump says he’s withdrawing National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland

Updated Dec 31, 2025, 5:46 PM ET -- President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he’s withdrawing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland but left the door open to sending federal forces “in a much different and stronger form.”

His announcement comes after the US Supreme Court last week rejected his request to allow him to deploy the guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents as part of the administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown.

While the ruling was a blow to his administration’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, it appeared likely Trump could still invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy regular forces to Chicago and other cities. Invoking the 19th century law — a controversial move that Trump and his aides repeatedly teased during the 2024 campaign and early in the second term — would give him broad authority to evade restrictions on using the military domestically.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/31/politics/trump-national-gaurd-withdrawl-chicago-los-angeles-portland