Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
President Donald Trump is leveraging a recent appeals court decision that affirmed his administration’s authority to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, as he urges the Supreme Court to permit a similar effort in Chicago. The high court is currently deliberating whether lower federal courts were correct in blocking Trump’s plan to send hundreds of Guard members to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Chicago’s suburbs, with a decision expected within days.
Administration’s Argument for Deployment
The Trump administration told the justices that its decision to deploy the National Guard is either unreviewable by courts or, at minimum, warrants significant deference. Describing those protesting in Chicago as “rioters” engaged in “violent resistance,” the administration pointed to recent decisions from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that endorsed similar deployments in Los Angeles and Portland.
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the president should consider the “totality of the circumstances” and that courts should not “discount evidence they deem less relevant.” Sauer framed the events in Chicago as part of a broader national threat, citing “violent riots” in other cities and threats against federal agents.
Lower Court Rulings and State Opposition
The Supreme Court case is one of the most significant emergency cases involving the Trump administration to reach the high court so far. It reviews whether lower federal courts were correct to block the deployment.
US District Court Judge April Perry, who temporarily blocked the deployment in Illinois earlier this month, disputed the administration’s characterization of events. Perry, nominated by former President Joe Biden, noted a “troubling trend” of the administration “equating protests with riots.” The Chicago-based 7th Circuit largely upheld Perry’s temporary order.
Illinois officials have contested the administration’s claims, stating that local law enforcement has effectively handled isolated protest activities. They argue there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, pushing back against the idea that protests against ICE agents are comparable to an invading foreign army.
Legal Precedent at Play
The Department of Justice has based its case on the 1827 Supreme Court decision in Martin v. Mott. This case involved Jacob Mott, a New York militia member who disobeyed President James Madison’s order to mobilize during the War of 1812.
The Supreme Court in that instance rejected Mott’s argument that Madison had misjudged the danger, ruling that “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president.” However, Illinois officials contend that the War of 1812 entailed “vastly different” facts than the current situation.
Implications of the Decision
The full 9th Circuit is currently weighing whether to reconsider its panel’s decision regarding the Portland deployment, which had buoyed President Trump’s broader campaign to deploy the Guard on US soil. Though the case before the Supreme Court specifically concerns Chicago, its outcome is expected to influence other ongoing litigation where Trump seeks to send the National Guard to various US cities.
The Supreme Court’s impending decision in the Chicago case is anticipated to have significant implications for the extent of presidential authority in deploying the National Guard domestically, particularly in response to civil unrest.
