From Portland to Chicago: How Courts are Shaping Trump’s National Guard Agenda
Protestors in downtown Chicago rally against ICE and the federal deployment of federal troops in the city. Source: North Country Public Radio.
On Friday, October 17, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court regarding President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in the Democratic-led cities of Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois. Since Trump’s initial deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles this summer, this is the first time his administration has requested the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of sending federal troops into cities without properly obtaining permission.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s involvement in the case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a halt to Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops from Illinois and Texas until October 23, finding no sufficient evidence that the city of Chicago is in a state of “rebellion.” U.S. District Judge April Perry, appointed by former President Joe Biden, conveyed her doubts about the Trump administration’s claims that the federal government needed to intervene to protect the city from protestors. While rejecting the notion that protests, in response to immigration practices, have escalated to violent riots, the 7th Circuit panel wrote, “Political opposition is not rebellion,” emphasizing that Trump’s involvement in cities similar to Chicago is simply a matter of silencing political opponents. After Solicitor General Sauer filed the emergency appeal framing the 7th Circuit as irrelevant in the face of the “Commander-in-Chief”, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, stated, “Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy.”
Similar to Judge Perry’s ruling, Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on October 4 that the federal government’s reasons for deploying the National Guard are not based on credible evidence. She emphasized that deploying the military against American citizens constitutes a threat to American democracy and that the Founding Fathers warned against similar abuses of power. However, the 9th Circuit gave the Trump administration the green light to continue deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this year. Judge Immergut’s ruling is currently on appeal, but most of the judges on the court’s panel seemed to favor allowing federal troops to remain in urban areas.
Before waiting for SCOTUS to deliver its ruling, Trump stated that if lower courts continue to block his ability to deploy federal troops, he could invoke the Insurrection Act. When a president uses the Insurrection Act, they can send the military into states that either fail to calm down an insurrection or defy the federal government. With regards to the Insurrection Act, Judge Perry stated, “The courts are open, and the marshals are ready to see that any sentences of imprisonment are carried out. Resort[ing] to the military to execute the laws is not called for,” maintaining a consistent posture that there is no reason for federal government intervention. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, it is important to note that the outcome will set a precedent for future deployments of the National Guard. A ruling in favor of Trump will expand the president’s power to intervene in domestic affairs, while an opposing decision would emphasize state sovereignty in resolving its own conflicts.
Despite multiple judges ruling that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard is unconstitutional, the White House has ordered federal troops into Memphis, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C. While the Trump administration has argued that there are high levels of violent crime in these areas, local authorities have repeatedly rejected these claims. The President’s claims of unrest in Democrat-led cities have created tension between their respective governors and local leaders. When initially filing the lawsuits to block the National Guard from being deployed to their respective states, the Democratic governors of both Illinois and Oregon stated that the Trump administration intentionally portrayed peaceful demonstrations as violent riots to rationalize deploying federal troops into areas ruled by the opposing party.
What began as a show of federal power has, ultimately, become a test of defining constitutional limits. With the case before the Supreme Court, the consequences of Trump’s National Guard deployment have culminated in a tumultuous moment. The Court’s ruling will shape how future presidents intervene in domestic affairs. Until then, the growing tensions between Washington and state leaders undermine the delicate balance between executive and local power. As political tensions rise and the nation awaits the Court’s decision, it is becoming increasingly clear that the outcome will influence how America defines both leadership and the limits of presidential power.