U.S. Supreme Court rules against Trump, won't lift block on National Guard deployment in Illinois67%
By Jon Seidel71%
12/23/2025, 1:03:33 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.3% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 453 faulty-reasoning hits from 780 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,294 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.70% of the article peer group.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 16, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
The high court refused to lift the block against President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois in a ruling on Tuesday.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump and refused to lift a block on National Guard deployment within the state of Illinois, finding that Trump invoked a law that required him to first be unable to execute federal law with help from the U.S. military.
The justices wrote, in an unsigned opinion, that their conclusion means the law only applies in situations where the military has legal authority to execute criminal law — circumstances the high court called “exceptional.”
“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,” they wrote.
The decision, appearing on the high court’s “emergency” or “shadow” docket, is the first from the justices addressing Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops into American cities against the will of local elected officials.
While Solicitor General John Sauer argued in mid-October that the lives and safety of federal personnel were at risk, the justices let two months go by before ruling.
They also sought additional information about the role of the U.S. military under the law invoked by Trump.
Meanwhile, his administration continued to suffer legal setbacks in Chicago related to the deportation campaign known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”
That campaign seems to have mostly ramped down for the winter, but U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino made another recent appearance in the area.
Legal battles have also been fought over Trump’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops in California and Oregon, but Illinois’ lawsuit was the first to reach the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration said it wanted to deploy Illinois and Texas National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and facilities, but Illinois attorneys argued it was really an attempt to punish the state.
That’s because Illinois and Chicago have adopted so-called sanctuary policies, which mean local authorities won’t assist federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement in tracking down immigrants without legal status.
Federalization of the Illinois National Guard is expected to last until April 15, according to Gov. JB Pritzker’s office.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after four lower-court judges — two nominated by Democratic presidents and two nominated by Republicans — concluded the facts on the ground didn’t justify Trump’s deployment of the National Guard.
The rulings have blocked Trump from deploying troops within Illinois since early October.
Arguments revolved around a law that allows the president to call into federal service members of the National Guard of any state if there is an invasion or rebellion — or if the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Trump administration has not argued there has been an invasion, but it has pointed to the other two circumstances in the law.
In late October, the Supreme Court justices asked both sides to explain “whether the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation” of the law.
Illinois and Chicago argued “regular forces” did refer to the military, meaning Trump’s bid to deploy National Guard troops should be rejected.
Sauer argued it didn’t matter, because the president “determined that the regular forces of the United States are not sufficient.”
Trump didn’t specify who the “regular forces” were, Sauer insisted, “much less exclude the standing military from consideration.”
U.S. District Judge April Perry, named to the bench by President Joe Biden, originally ruled against the Trump administration Oct. 9, finding its “perception of events” around Chicago was “simply unreliable.”
She said she’d seen “no credible evidence that there is danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois,” nor that Trump “is unable … to execute the laws of the United States.”
A three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mostly upheld Perry’s ruling, finding that “the facts do not justify the president’s actions in Illinois” under the law.
The panel declared that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
It also said the Trump administration’s own rhetoric undermined its claim that it is “unable” to execute federal law.
“The administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area,” the panel wrote.
That ruling came from Judges Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton and Amy St. Eve.
Rovner was nominated to the appellate court by President George H.W. Bush; Hamilton was nominated by President Barack Obama; and St. Eve was nominated by Trump.
Speakers
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.