The Supreme Court blocked \u2014 for now \u2014 President Donald Trump\u2019s effort to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of the state\u2019s Democratic governor in an order Tuesday.<\/p>\n
In an unsigned order, the court\u2019s majority upheld a lower court order blocking Trump\u2019s deployment of more than 300 National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. While Trump has argued the deployments were needed to secure immigration enforcement efforts, the Supreme Court found that he likely exceeded his authority by federalizing the guard.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,\u201d the order said.<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u2019s ruling hinged on the definition of \u201cregular forces\u201d in the law Trump used to call up the National Guard. The law allows the president to federalize state National Guard forces, who normally take orders from state governors, if he is \u201cunable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Trump administration maintained that \u201cregular forces\u201d meant civilian law enforcement, which they claimed were under threat of violence from protests in Chicago and elsewhere. Chicago and Illinois argued that \u201cregular forces\u201d meant the U.S. military\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0 which can only be used in emergencies.<\/p>\n
The justices ultimately agreed with Chicago and the state in Tuesday\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote separately to agree with part of the decision, but argued the majority went too far to declare that the president could not lawfully federalize guard troops amid an emergency.<\/p>\n
\u201cOf course, that kind of hypothetical scenario does not often arise, and we can hope that it will not arise in the future,\u201d Kavanaugh wrote.<\/p>\n
The court fight started after Trump announced on Oct. 4 he would federalize Illinois\u2019 National Guard and later deployed both the state guard and troops from Texas despite Pritzker\u2019s objections. The state and city challenged Trump\u2019s decision and won a favorable ruling from Judge April Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois<\/p>\n
The Trump administration asked the justices to weigh in on the case in October. After receiving initial filings from the Trump administration and the state, the justices asked for further arguments on the definition of \u201cregular forces.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ruling came after multiple lower court judges and appeals courts ruled against the use of guard troops in U.S. cities over the objections of local governors, including in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland.<\/p>\n
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented from the opinion and Alito wrote to criticize the majority for considering new arguments.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no basis for rejecting the President\u2019s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,\u201d Alito wrote.<\/p>\n
The case only covers the deployment of National Guard troops over the objections of home state governors. In Louisiana, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry told reporters he would deploy National Guard troops of his own accord to support immigration enforcement in New Orleans.<\/p>\n
The case also does not cover Trump\u2019s authority to use a federal law known as the Insurrection Act to use military troops for domestic law enforcement, which he has repeatedly threatened to do.<\/p>\n
The case is Trump v. State of Illinois and City of Chicago.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court blocked \u2014 for now \u2014 President Donald Trump\u2019s effort to deploy National Guard troops to…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":467476,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5124],"tags":[960,25982,5386,1818,409,353,1802,1571,35035,1269,5620,278,358,15037,277],"class_list":{"0":"post-467475","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-chicago","8":"tag-chicago","9":"tag-executive-branch","10":"tag-il","11":"tag-illinois","12":"tag-immigration","13":"tag-louisiana","14":"tag-military","15":"tag-national","16":"tag-oped","17":"tag-opinion","18":"tag-republicans","19":"tag-supreme-court","20":"tag-texas","21":"tag-troops","22":"tag-trump"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115771087771302727","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467475","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=467475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467475\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/467476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=467475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=467475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=467475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}