In a major legal test of President Trump’s plan to deploy troops to Democratic-led cities, a Chicago judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the move.
District Judge April Perry issued a 14-day order barring the deployment of National Guard troops from any state into Illinois. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a tense, hour-long hearing on whether to lift a lower court’s block on troop deployment to Portland.
The simultaneous proceedings set up one of the most high-profile legal clashes of Trump’s presidency, as cities challenge what some judges warn blurs the line between civilian and military authority.
In her ruling, Judge Perry found “no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois” and no indication that federal law enforcement was unable to maintain order without military assistance. She warned that deploying the National Guard “is likely to trigger civil unrest,” forcing local and state authorities to respond. Perry also cited the “provocative nature of ICE enforcement activity” in Illinois, particularly Chicago, as a factor heightening tensions.
“I find allowing the national guard to deploy will only add fuel to the fire that they started,” said Perry.
Before Judge Perry’s ruling, Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton argued that Chicago faces “brazen hostility” toward federal officers and “tragic lawlessness” marked by violence against DHS and ICE personnel. He cited incidents of agitators bringing guns to federal sites, throwing projectiles and fireworks at agents, and obstructing immigration enforcement — evidence, he said, of Illinois’s “unprecedented disregard for law and order.”
Perry pressed Hamilton on the Guard’s mission and authority, seeking clarity on its limits. Hamilton said the deployment was meant to protect federal personnel and property, but declined to rule out expanding its scope if conditions changed. Calling the situation “dynamic,” Hamilton said the response would adapt as needed and noted that plaintiffs could return to court if the mission evolved.
At the same time, a Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments on lifting a lower court’s block on deploying 200 federalized Oregon National Guard troops to Portland. The court issued an administrative stay to maintain the status quo as the case proceeds. Oregon contended the deployment was part of a “nationwide campaign to merge the military with civilian law enforcement” and was based on “false claims” about unrest in Portland.
“Defendants’ nearly limitless conception [of the law] would give the President discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary, nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our Nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful Executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our State and the Nation,” lawyers for the state said in a recent filing.
On Sunday, a federal judge broadened her order to block any state’s National Guard from entering Portland, finding the Trump administration was trying to bypass her earlier restraining order by using out-of-state troops. The new directive bars the “relocation, federalization, or deployment” of Guard forces to Oregon. It has not yet been appealed, though the issue is expected to surface as the administration contests limits on the president’s deployment authority.
“Congress did not impose these limits on the President’s authority to federalize the Guard, nor did it authorize the federal courts to second-guess the President’s judgment about when and where to call up the Guard to reinforce the regular forces in response to sustained and widespread violent resistance to federal law enforcement,” lawyers for the Trump administration wrote in a filing earlier this week.
In a Thursday amicus brief, former Army and Navy secretaries and retired four-star officers urged Judge Perry to exercise caution over expanding National Guard use in domestic operations.
“Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to [the Posse Comitatus Act] threaten the Guard’s core national security and disaster relief missions; place deployed personnel in fraught situations for which they lack specific training, thus posing safety concerns for servicemembers and the public alike; and risk inappropriately politicizing the military, creating additional risks to recruitment, retention, morale, and cohesion of the force,” lawyers for the former military leaders wrote.
