CHICAGO – A federal judge partially granted a temporary restraining order halting President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois after hearing arguments challenging the legality of the action.
“Not even Alexander Hamilton could have envisioned one state’s militia to be used against another state’s residents because the president wants to punish those with views other than his own,” the judge said.
What we know:
Illinois officials urged the court to order the National Guard to stand down in the Chicago area, calling the deployment a constitutional crisis. They said the Trump administration ignored a pending legal challenge when it sent troops overnight to an immigration enforcement building.
In granting the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge April Perry ruled that the deployment violated the 10th and 4th Amendments.
The TRO will last for approximately 14 days. The “partial” part of the order means it is only applicable to National Guard troops, not other federal agents like ICE, CBP, etc.
Broadview has been at the center of the dispute amid recent protests. The judge noted that, according to Broadview police, the mobilization of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in a parking lot across from an ICE facility escalated tensions with demonstrators.
Since Sept. 12, cameras have been installed and ICE agents have “regularly deployed chemical agents indiscriminately,” according to Broadview police.
Trump issued a memorandum the same day that officers reported conditions were stable, praising the Illinois State Police and authorizing the use of National Guard troops. Illinois troops were given two hours to organize under Title 32.
Gov. JB Pritzker refused, prompting Trump to invoke Title 10 to federalize the troops.
What they’re saying:
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the temporary restraining order means National Guard troops cannot be activated in Illinois.
“I think Judge Perry did a very careful job of weighing the evidence, weighing the credibility of the evidence and those declarations that served as the testimony to be considered as to whether or not the President of the United States could and should federalize and deploy the National Guard into our great city and our great state and I think after doing so she made the correct decision to enter a temporary restraining order,” Raoul said.
Raoul said the ruling has implications beyond Illinois.
“I might add that this is an important decision not just for the state of Illinois but for the entire country. The question of state sovereignty was addressed in this decision. The question of whether or not the President of the United States should have unfettered authority to militarize our cities was answered today, and I want to thank every member of the legal team, those you see behind me who argued who drafted carefully and all those who supported them,” he added.
Mayor Brandon Johnson also released a statement on the passage of the temporary restraining order:
“This ruling is a win for the people of Chicago and the rule of law. Judge Perry echoed many of the points that we have made repeatedly: Trump’s deployment is illegal, unconstitutional, dangerous, and unnecessary. There is no rebellion in Chicago. There are just good people standing up for what is right. The judge established that the Trump administration is unreliable. They lie, misrepresent, and put people in danger. We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to end the Trump administration’s war on Chicago.”
Pritzker also commented on the order, saying, “Donald Trump is not a king — and his administration is not above the law. Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago.”
What Happens Now:
Raoul said that under the temporary restraining order, National Guard troops already in Illinois are welcome to stay in hotels if they pay the regular rate and may dine at local restaurants “like any other American citizens.”
“I don’t look negatively at any one of the individuals who have lent themselves to service in our country…,” Raoul said. “They’re welcome to stay and shop and eat and so forth… I think our decision is on their behalf as well, that they should not be turned against the very citizens that they volunteered to protect.”
Judge Perry said she plans to release more details on the order Friday.
The backstory:
Wells’ arguments opened an extraordinary hearing in federal court in Chicago. The city and the state, run by Democratic elected leaders, say President Donald Trump has vastly exceeded his authority and ignored their pleas to keep the Guard off the streets.
Heavy public turnout at the downtown courthouse caused officials to open an overflow room with a video feed of the hearing. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson got a seat in a corner of the courtroom.
Feds say Guard won’t solve all crime
U.S. Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton said the Chicago area was rife with “tragic lawlessness.” He pointed to an incident last weekend in which a Border Patrol vehicle was boxed in and an agent shot a woman in response.
“Chicago is seeing a brazen new form of hostility from rioters targeting federal law enforcement,” Hamilton said. “They’re not protesters. There is enough that there is a danger of a rebellion here, which there is.”
He said some people were wearing gas masks, a suggestion they were poised for a fight, but U.S. District Judge April Perry countered it might be justified to avoid tear gas at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Broadview, outside Chicago.
“I, too, would wear a gas mask,” the judge said, “not because I’m trying to be violent but because I’m trying to protect myself.”
Hamilton also tried to narrow the issues. He said the Guard’s mission would be to protect federal properties and government law enforcers in the field — not “solving all of crime in Chicago.”
Guard on the ground at ICE site
Guard members from Texas and Illinois arrived this week at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, southwest of Chicago. All 500 are under the U.S. Northern Command and have been activated for 60 days.
Some Guard troops could be seen behind portable fences at the Broadview ICE building. It has been the site of occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents, but the scene was peaceful, with few people present.
Wells, the lawyer for Illinois, described the impact of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Chicago, noting that U.S. citizens have been temporarily detained. He acknowledged the “president does have the power, and he’s using that power.”
“But that power is not unlimited,” Wells added, referring to the Guard deployment. “And this court can check that power.”
Perry told the parties to return to court late Thursday afternoon.
Guard on court docket elsewhere
Also Thursday, a federal appeals court heard arguments over whether Trump had the authority to take control of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. The president had planned to deploy them in Portland, where there have been mostly small nightly protests outside an ICE building.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Sunday granted a temporary restraining order blocking the move. Trump had mobilized California troops for Portland just hours after the judge first blocked him from using Oregon’s Guard.
Two dozen other states with a Democratic attorney general or governor signed a court filing in support of the legal challenge by California and Oregon. Twenty others, led by Iowa, backed the Trump administration.
The nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.
Troops used in other states
Trump previously sent troops to Los Angeles and Washington. In Memphis, Tennessee, Mayor Paul Young said troops would begin patrolling Friday. Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee supports the role.
Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis said she hoped the Guard would be used to direct traffic and have a presence in retail corridors, but not used for checkpoints or similar.
Davis said she doesn’t want Memphis to “feel like there is this over-militarization in our communities.”
The Trump administration’s aggressive use of the Guard was challenged this summer in California, which won and lost a series of court decisions while opposing the policy of putting troops in Los Angeles, where they protected federal buildings and immigration agents.
A judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained on the ground. The judge did not order them to leave. The government later took steps to send them to Oregon.
Developments from federal court
- Plaintiff: We take that very seriously, the notion that law enforcement is at risk. Most of our evidence comes from law enforcement. See how that’s being perceived. That’s irreparable harm. Troops are already here and will be at the courthouse tomorrow. That’s irreparable harm. Ask that you grant injunction
- Defendant: We submitted evidence of violence against personnel, coordinated, serious… Plaintiffs’ claims meritless and premature.
- Plaintiff: This case is replete with evidence of bad faith, a lack of evidence of public devotion. A pattern of conduct that is terrifying… I hear another indictment while we’ve been sitting in here has been thrown out. ICE continues to detain U.S. citizens, children, so unfortunately the president, yeah, has the power and he’s using it but it’s not unlimited and this court can check that power.
- Plaintiff: I can only say that what we heard from DOJ was startling, boundless, limitless and not in accord with a constitutional order that has protected this nation and allowed it to function for hundreds of years… President has no power under constition to send in troops for anything he wants to use them for. Full stop.
- Judge: Is it your belief that the president couldn’t take forces from Greak Lakes and deploy them to Broadview?Plaintiff: We don’t need military forces there. There’s local, state and federal officials that could be used but not the military… The president has to act consistent with the constitution.
- Judge: There have been acts of vandalism. Sliced tires like a Carrie Underwood song. But it’s a struggle for me to see that you can’t execute laws just because you’re not doing it as quickly as you’d like.Defendant: This is no Carrie Underwood song. Repeated acts of violence.
- Judge: If for years they’ve had peaceful protests in Broadview, and CBP shows up and things escalate… They’re coming in hot, according to evidence. If that’s making people mad and they’re responding in kind. The reason they can’t execute laws is because of their own provocation.
- Defendant: There’s a highly deferential standard toward the president.
- Judge: There are opinions that the very presence of agents could be causing the violence… Evidence shows ICE started tear gas and masks first.
- Defendant: I can’t make representations about what happens in the future
- Judge: Help me understand if what you’re proposing is really as broad as what it seems.
- Judge: We’d be in a different position if your argument had been we’re having problems on federal property enforcing immigration laws. You have not narrowed that scope. I am struggling to find out where this would ever stop.
- Defendant: Guard could improve security situation, which is exactly what happened in California.
- Judge: President has made statement that could arguably be interpreted that elected officials are impeding. Is that correct? Regarding sanctuary status?Defendant: Yes.Judge: Does that mean conditions are met in every sanctuary city or state?Defendant: Different situation. We’re citing violence.Judge: They’re not.
- Judge: I expected you’d tell me they (National Guard) were here for immigration laws. Sounds like your argument could mean anything.
- Latest exchange between the judge and the defendants – Judge April Perry: Assuming every person who assaulted and vandalized federal authorities and properties committed an offense and they were arrested and prosecuted, do you believe the president is unable to execute the laws of the U.S.? Your understanding of execute is prevent?Defendant: We’re not saying the commission of one crime is evidence. This is repeat and harming the Department of Homeland Security, property and overall mission.Judge: Drugs have been dealt in Chicago for many decades. So that means the president has had the authority for decades to send in the National Guard to assist the DEA?
- U.S. District Judge April Perry said under the defendants’ definition all nonviolent protests would qualify as a rebellion.
- When asked, attorneys for the defendants said they were unaware of a temporary restraining order issued against ICE for excessive force. Defendants replied saying they had remarkable evidence of criminality, citing the ramming of agents’ cars.
- The judge and the defendants are now discussing people bringing guns to the ICE protests. Perry referenced the charges that were dropped by the Department of Justice for the two protesters that were armed when they were detained on Sept. 27. Perry said people have a constitutional right to bear arms and that does not qualify as evidence of criminality.
- Lots of back-and-forth going on between the judge and the attorneys from the Trump Administration. The defendants are saying protesters are wearing masks with the intent to harm agents. The judge said after seeing ICE indiscriminately tear-gassing peaceful protesters, she would wear a mask too.
- The judge told the defendants that the picture they painted of the federal response does not reflect that of Broadview police and Illinois State Police.
- U.S. District Judge April Perry cited social media statements and press conferences by Trump to the defendant’s attorneys: “There’s a large discrepancy in what you sent me and what the president has stated elsewhere. Why should I just consider what you submitted?”
- When asked by the judge if the National Guard will be solving crime in Chicago, the defendants said they will to an extent in the form of protection and the reduction of violence.
- The judge is questioning the defendants on what National Guard members are able to do legally: “Can they engage in crowd or traffic control? Can they brandish weapons?” Attorneys for the defendants said they did not know beyond what has already been cited in the record.
- The Trump Administration said the National Guard is not authorized to carry out arrests. In Los Angeles earlier this year, they detained people until federal agents could take them into custody.
- The judge is asking the defendants what their understanding is of what National Guard troops are doing while they’re protecting.
- The judge on National Guard troops in Illinois: “It sounds like they aren’t limited to just protecting federal buildings right? They could be at neighborhoods and hospitals and schools?” The defendants replied “Yes, if there is a request.”
- U.S. District Judge April Perry voiced concerns about the lack of guard rails in the Trump Administration’s current plan. She asked if they plan on keeping troops at the Broadview ICE facility.
- The defendants are asking the judge to deny the motion, stating there is nothing extraordinary about the National Guard from another state (in this case Texas) being here in Illinois.
- The Trump Administration said the deployment of the National Guard is lawful because it is within the president’s authority. They said they are responding to an urgent, serious and ongoing threat.
- The Trump Administration is arguing federalization of troops is warranted after a bounty was reported on one immigration official and the recent ramming of ICE vehicles. They cited the Supreme Court case of Martin v. Mott concerning the president’s emergency powers.
- Defendants in the lawsuit say there is “tragic lawlessness” in the city and officers are met with resistance. They cited an improved explosive device that was found outside the Broadview ICE facility.
- Attorneys for the state are arguing that what Trump has done to Illinois is illegal and dangerous. They are asking the court to reset the balance of constitutional order in Illinois.
- A presidential memorandum came in at 11:34 p.m. last night claiming the president is unable to execute laws in Illinois.
- The state began its case by talking about the balance of state power against federal government, arguing that federalizing troops threatens that balance.
- Several filings came in last night and this morning regarding this case.
Local perspective:
The state of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday alleging that Trump’s authorization to deploy troops to the Windy City is “unlawful and dangerous.”
Barricades surrounded the Dirksen Federal Courthouse downtown ahead of Thursday’s hearing, where state and city officials are asking the court to declare the deployment unlawful.
The 69-page complaint argues that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by using the military in domestic affairs and that Americans “should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military” for political reasons.
The Trump administration has defended the move, saying the Guard is needed to assist federal immigration agents amid violent clashes at protests in Broadview and on Chicago’s Southwest Side. About 700 troops are currently stationed in Illinois, including 400 from Texas, according to officials.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said this week he sent the troops to safeguard federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The Texas National Guard has been part of the state’s Operation Lone Star border enforcement initiative since 2021.
The court fight has escalated political tensions between Trump and Illinois leaders. On Wednesday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson “should be in jail” for not protecting ICE agents.
Pritzker accused Trump of abusing power, calling his remarks “unhinged” and saying “come and get me.”
Johnson wrote, “This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” referencing Trump’s role in the 1989 Central Park Five case.
The Source: The information in this article came from The Associated Press and previous FOX 32 reporting.
