On Saturday, October 11, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a consequential ruling that partially restored President Donald Trump’s control over the National Guard in Illinois, but crucially blocked the administration from deploying those troops in the state. The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, leaves the Illinois National Guard under federal command for now, yet prevents active deployment on the ground—a move that has ignited a fierce debate over federal versus state authority and the limits of presidential power in domestic affairs.
This legal drama began earlier in the week when Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, joined by Chicago officials, filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of staging an “unconstitutional invasion of Illinois by the federal government.” The tension escalated after U.S. District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, granted a temporary restraining order on October 9, 2025, blocking Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago and across Illinois. Perry’s ruling was clear: “I have seen no credible evidence that there has been rebellion in the state of Illinois.” According to Reuters, she expressed skepticism that the administration’s justification—protecting federal agents from violent protesters—held water, emphasizing that civil authorities were functioning and lawbreakers were being arrested without military intervention.
The Trump administration responded swiftly, requesting an emergency stay of Perry’s order. In a partial victory for the president, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration’s request to federalize the National Guard in Illinois but denied the request to deploy those troops. The court’s order stated, “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so.” This preserves a legal limbo: the Guard remains under federal command, but cannot be used for patrols or enforcement actions within Illinois—at least for now.
At the heart of the controversy is Operation Midway Blitz, a multi-state immigration enforcement initiative launched by the Trump administration in September. As part of this operation, approximately 300 federalized Illinois National Guard members and 200 troops from Texas were activated and sent to the Chicago area on October 8, 2025, according to U.S. Northern Command. Their mission, as stated by the military, is “to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property.” The troops were slated for a 60-day activation, but their presence has been met with intense resistance from local and state leaders.
Governor Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson hailed Judge Perry’s earlier decision as a stand for state sovereignty and civil rights. In a statement posted on social media, Pritzker declared, “Donald Trump is not a king—and his administration is not above the law.” Chicago officials argued that the deployment represented a “grave intrusion on Illinois’ sovereignty,” echoing the sentiments of many local leaders in other Democratic-led cities targeted by similar federal actions.
The legal battle in Illinois is not occurring in a vacuum. President Trump has previously sent the National Guard to other cities such as Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Portland, Oregon—often over the objections of local officials. In Portland, a similar scenario played out just days earlier: a federal judge blocked the deployment of National Guard troops, finding that the administration’s justification was “simply untethered to the facts.” In Los Angeles, Trump sent 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in June 2025 to quell protests related to immigration raids, but a local trial court later ruled that deployment illegal. An appeals court subsequently granted a stay, allowing the troops to remain while the administration appealed.
Trump has not shied away from invoking the possibility of using the Insurrection Act—last used in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots—to justify federal intervention. “I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump told reporters, as cited by Fox News. However, Judge Perry was unconvinced, stating, “There has been no showing that the civil power has failed. The agitators who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested. The courts are open, and the marshals are ready to see that any sentences of imprisonment are carried out. Resort to the military to execute the laws is not called for.” She added pointedly, “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.”
While the appellate court’s decision on Saturday offers a partial reprieve for the Trump administration, it stops short of granting the president the authority to deploy troops in Illinois. The ruling maintains the status quo: federalized National Guard members remain in Illinois but are not authorized to patrol, enforce laws, or protect federal property. The court’s administrative stay will remain in place while judges consider the full motion, leaving the ultimate fate of the deployment—and the broader question of federal versus state military authority—unresolved for now.
Political reactions have been swift and divided. Senate Republicans voiced concern about the precedent being set. “I worry about someday a Democrat president sending troops or National Guard from New York, California, Oregon, Washington state to North Carolina,” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina remarked. “I think it’s bad precedent.” Democratic governors and mayors, meanwhile, have continued to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the federal government is mischaracterizing mostly peaceful demonstrations as violent to justify military deployments.
This high-stakes legal struggle underscores a fundamental tension in American governance: the balance of power between state and federal authorities, especially when it comes to the use of military force within U.S. borders. As Democracy Docket noted, the Seventh Circuit’s decision “creates a legal limbo—one that could shape how far the federal government can go in using military forces within U.S. borders without a state’s consent.”
The blocking order in Illinois is set to remain in effect until at least October 23, 2025, though Judge Perry could extend it. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to expand deployments to other Democratic-led cities, as it has done in the past—despite mayoral and gubernatorial objections. The legal and political battles are likely far from over, and the coming weeks may bring further clarity—or more confusion—about the limits of federal power in the nation’s cities.
For now, the streets of Chicago remain free of National Guard patrols, as the courts weigh the complex intersection of law, politics, and the ever-contentious question of who truly holds the reins of American power.
