Federal Judges Block Trump's National Guard Deployments Amid Legal Challenges in Multiple Cities
Federal judges temporarily blocked President Trump's National Guard deployments in Illinois, delaying Memphis patrols. Legal battles continue over federal intervention, raising constitutional questions about troop necessity.
Judge partially blocks Trump's Chicago troop deployment
Washington Examiner
National Guard troops arrive at Broadview ICE facility
Chicago Sun-Times
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $5/month, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get StartedHave an account? Sign in
Overview
- Federal judges, including U.S. District Judge April Perry, temporarily blocked President Trump's National Guard deployments in the Chicago area for at least two weeks.
- Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago officials strongly opposed the federal deployment, deeming it unnecessary and illegal, initiating lawsuits and judicial scrutiny over troop justification.
- This Illinois blockage, expiring October 23, has delayed planned National Guard patrols in Memphis, despite support for deployment from Tennessee's Republican Governor and Memphis's mayor.
- Judge Perry scheduled a hearing to determine the extension of the Memphis patrol delay, citing potential violations of the 10th and 14th Amendments regarding federal authority.
- The legal challenges extend to Oregon, where judges are questioning the consideration of past protests and the necessity of federalizing the National Guard.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame this story by emphasizing judicial skepticism and findings that undermine the Trump administration's rationale for deploying the National Guard. They highlight judges' conclusions of "unreliable evidence" and "no credible rebellion," alongside strong opposition from state and local Democratic officials. This collective editorial choice portrays the deployments as legally questionable and potentially provocative.
"The question raised by the National Guard cases is how much deference the courts should give those judgments."
Reason"The city and state have called the deployments unnecessary and illegal."
ABC News"The city and state have called the deployments unnecessary and illegal."
Associated Press"Judge Perry determined that there is "no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in Illinois" and no evidence that the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the U.S."
ABC News"A judge blocked the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area for two weeks, finding no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois."
Military Times"The judge could rule the president was acting within his power and the guard can stay and do what they wish."
CBS News"State and local officials have pushed back and accused the White House of manufacturing a crisis to justify sending soldiers into Democratic strongholds."
USA TODAY"The presence of the National Guard in Broadview has sparked significant controversy and concern among local officials and residents."
Chicago Tribune"The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement site has become the center of recurring protests since President Donald Trump in early September launched “Operation Midway Blitz,” an aggressive deportation campaign in the Chicago area."
Chicago Sun-Times"Illinois’ lawsuit set up one of the biggest legal clashes yet between the Republican president and the state’s Democratic leaders."
Chicago Sun-Times"The lawsuit argues that there's no emergency in Chicago and that the administration has been trying to provoke unrest by increasing the presence of federal law agents who are using "unprecedented, brute force tactics for civil immigration enforcement.""
NBC News"Chicago and Illinois have filed a lawsuit to stop the deployments, calling them unnecessary and illegal."
ABC News"The supposed current emergency is belied by the fact that Trump’s Chicago troop deployment threats began more than ten years ago."
Chicago Tribune"A small number of National Guard troops has started protecting federal property in the Chicago area and assisting law enforcement in Memphis on Wednesday, according to officials."
ABC NewsArticles (30)
Center (14)
FAQ
Federal judges blocked the deployments because Illinois officials, including Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago leaders, strongly opposed the federal intervention as unnecessary and potentially illegal, leading to lawsuits challenging the justification for deploying troops. The judges cited constitutional concerns, including possible violations of the 10th and 14th Amendments related to federal authority and state powers.
The legal challenges cite potential violations of the 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights and limits federal intervention, and the 14th Amendment, concerning equal protection and due process. Courts are examining if the federal government has the authority to deploy troops over state objections and whether such deployments are necessary and lawful under the Constitution.
In Illinois, Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago officials have strongly opposed the federal deployment, initiating lawsuits and judicial scrutiny to block the troops' presence. In Memphis, although the deployment is supported by Tennessee's Republican Governor and Memphis's mayor, the deployment was delayed due to the Illinois court blockage, with further hearings planned.
In Oregon, federal judges have also questioned the necessity of federalizing the National Guard, especially considering past protests. Legal battles continue to determine if federal intervention is justified and lawful, highlighting broader constitutional and political debates over the President's authority to deploy troops in cities without state consent.
These cases are pivotal as they may set legal precedents governing the President's power to deploy National Guard troops over state objections. The outcomes could limit or affirm the extent of federal authority in domestic law enforcement, affecting the balance of power between the federal government and states in managing public safety and responding to civil unrest.
History
- 25d
7 articles - 25d
6 articles
- 25d
3 articles
- 25d
7 articles