The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago, issuing a rare rebuke of the administration on the issue of executive power.
The unsigned preliminary order rejected the administration’s premise that public safety in Chicago was so deteriorated that it required federal intervention under a law that allows the president to order troops into extreme situations.
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the order said.
The ruling saw three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissent, while fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh chose not to align with the majority’s reasoning.
Trending
“I agree with the Court’s decision to deny the Government’s application for a stay, but I would do so on narrower grounds,” Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion.
In court documents, the state of Illinois asserted that Trump’s use of the federal law was unwarranted. They contended that his actions breached the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which restricts federal authority, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, a law that generally prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement functions.
Typically, state-based troops, such as the National Guard, are activated by governors to address in-state emergencies, like natural disasters. However, federal law does grant the president the power to federalize National Guard members without state consent under specific conditions. These conditions include a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or when law enforcement is unable to enforce U.S. law because it is overwhelmed.
“The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the majority wrote, effectively arguing that the conditions on the ground in Chicago were not present for the administration to justify its federalization of National Guard troops.
“The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.
The dissenters, in an opinion penned by Justice Alito, argued that the Court should have deferred to the president on matters of public safety — and provided the administration broad latitude in determining whether it was unsafe for federal agents to enforce immigration laws.
“There is no basis for rejecting the president’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,” Alito wrote.
“I am not prepared at this point to express a definite view on these questions, but I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views,” Alito added.
Around 200 National Guard troops from Texas and 300 troops from Illinois were sent to the city in October, with the administration referencing “out of control” crime and violent interactions between civilian protesters and ICE agents.
Just days after arriving, some of the troops were recalled due to concerns that they were overweight and did not meet standards for readiness.
The deployment was met quickly with pushback from locals. Some protests led to mass arrests, including the detention of around two dozen individuals outside of an ICE facility during a protest led by local faith leaders and church organizers in November.
A number of the troops in Chicago were later recalled in November after being barred from carrying out operations due to lower court rulings.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday boosts efforts to block other deployments across the country. Trump has moved to deploy troops into several cities led by his Democratic opponents, including Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.
The administration has been rapidly appealing to the Supreme Court when lower courts block its policies, and in recent months, the Supreme Court has often sided with Trump on matters of executive power.
Those rulings include decisions allowing Trump to fire employees at independent agencies, allowing the administration to withhold billions in federally appropriated funds and frequently taking emergency action to block lower court opinions ruling against the administration.
The Court is also expected to rule on whether Trump has broad authority to impose tariffs on imports into the United States, an assertion the Court seems dubious of.
Author
