The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump’s emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, dealing a major blow to his administration’s efforts to use military personnel for immigration enforcement in Democratic-led cities.
On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, left in place a lower court injunction blocking the deployment. The unsigned order stated that the government failed to identify a legal source allowing the military to execute laws in Illinois, emphasizing that the term ‘regular forces’ likely refers to the standing military, not civilian agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Trump administration sought to deploy hundreds of National Guard members from Illinois and Texas to protect ICE agents amid sustained protests at a facility in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago. Illinois officials, including Attorney General Kwame Raoul, sued to stop the deployment, arguing it overstepped federal authority and threatened state sovereignty.
In its decision, the court highlighted that the administration had not demonstrated an inability to enforce immigration laws with existing civilian resources. This legal interpretation limits the president’s power to federalize the National Guard under the 1908 law invoked, requiring a clearer showing of necessity tied to military rather than law enforcement functions.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, contending that the court should not undermine the president’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal personnel and property. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with blocking the deployment but expressed concern that the ruling might restrict future emergency responses where immediate military intervention is needed.
The ruling represents a significant setback for Trump’s broader strategy to deploy troops in other cities such as Portland, Memphis, and Los Angeles, where similar legal challenges are ongoing. It reinforces judicial checks on executive power and underscores the principle that domestic use of the military for law enforcement requires stringent legal justification.
Prior to the decision, the administration had already scaled back deployments, sending home some Texas National Guard troops and keeping others on standby. The case took over two months to resolve, reflecting the court’s careful deliberation on balancing presidential authority with state rights and civil liberties.
Moving forward, the decision does not prevent Trump from invoking other authorities like the Insurrection Act, but such actions would face political and legal hurdles. The ongoing litigation in lower courts will continue to shape the boundaries of federal power in domestic security matters, with this ruling setting a precedent for future crises.
