On October 22, 2025, a federal judge in Chicago made a decision that could have sweeping consequences for the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Judge April Perry agreed to extend indefinitely a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in the Chicago area, pending a final ruling that could ultimately come from the U.S. Supreme Court. The move, which keeps nearly 500 National Guard troops from taking up posts in the city, comes at the heart of a legal and political showdown that has been building for weeks.
The initial TRO was set to expire on October 23, 2025, but Judge Perry’s extension means the block will remain in place until a final judgment is reached. As reported by Capitol News Illinois, both the Trump administration and attorneys representing Illinois and Chicago agreed to keep the restraining order in place until the courts provide a definitive answer. This rare moment of consensus, however, belies the deep tensions simmering beneath the surface, as both sides continue to prepare for a potential Supreme Court battle.
The legal dispute traces back to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to deploy National Guard troops—who are typically under state jurisdiction—to major cities led by Democratic officials. The president has argued that such deployments are necessary to fight crime and protect federal officials tasked with enforcing immigration laws. According to ABC 7 Chicago, Trump announced he was federalizing around 300 Illinois National Guard members and sending about 400 Texas National Guard members to Chicago to bolster federal immigration operations and protect property. State and city leaders, however, swiftly called the move illegal and filed suit to challenge the president’s authority.
Judge Perry’s courtroom has become the epicenter of this conflict. On Wednesday morning, she allowed both parties to discuss the possibility of a 30-day extension before reconvening in the afternoon. She made it clear that this would be the last such extension, stating that the TRO would remain effective until a final judgment—potentially from the Supreme Court—was delivered. As The Associated Press noted, anything Judge Perry does could quickly become moot if the nation’s highest court decides to intervene.
The Trump administration, for its part, is not backing down. On Tuesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking permission to proceed with the deployment. In his filing, he argued, “Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive.” The administration maintains that the president’s authority to federalize the Guard is clear, and that swift action is needed to address what it characterizes as urgent threats to public safety and federal operations.
Attorneys for Chicago and Illinois, meanwhile, have asked the Supreme Court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.” Christopher Wells, representing Illinois, said, “We’re inclined to agree, so long as the case moves expeditiously. If the Supreme Court’s ruling alters the status quo, we’ll be seeking accelerated proceedings.” The Department of Justice’s consent to extend the TRO was “without prejudice,” meaning the federal government reserves the right to appeal or seek emergency relief from higher courts, according to Justice Department attorney Jody Lowenstein.
The legal battle in Chicago is just one front in a broader national conflict over the use of the National Guard. Across the country, similar disputes are playing out in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Washington, D.C. In Los Angeles, California Governor Gavin Newsom is challenging the deployment of Guard troops, with a federal appeals court set to hear arguments. In Portland, an appeals court recently ruled that Trump could take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, but a separate court order still blocks him from actually deploying them. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued two TROs earlier this month: one prohibiting Trump from calling up Oregon troops for Portland, and another blocking him from sending any Guard members to Oregon after he attempted to deploy California troops instead. The Justice Department appealed the first order, and a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the administration, but Immergut’s second order remains in effect.
Meanwhile, more than 2,200 Guard troops remain deployed in Washington, D.C., supporting Trump’s initiatives since late August. According to The Associated Press, 45 states have entered filings in a case centered on the D.C. deployments, with 23 supporting the administration and 22 backing the attorney general’s lawsuit to block them. Some states have announced plans to withdraw their units by November 30, unless the situation changes.
In Tennessee, Democratic officials have taken their own legal action, arguing that Republican Governor Bill Lee—acting at Trump’s request—violated the state constitution by deploying the Guard to Memphis without legislative approval. Since arriving on October 10, troops have been patrolling downtown Memphis in military police gear, though officials emphasize they have no arrest power.
Back in Chicago, the immediate future remains uncertain. Judge Perry outlined three possible paths forward: move to a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for November 17, proceed to a full trial on the merits, or convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, the TRO stays in effect, and the city’s streets remain free of new National Guard deployments—at least for now.
As the legal wrangling continues, the case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over federal versus state authority, executive power, and the appropriate use of military force in domestic affairs. With both sides digging in and the Supreme Court poised to play a decisive role, the outcome could set a precedent that shapes the relationship between the federal government and the states for years to come.
For Chicagoans and Americans watching from afar, the stakes are clear: the resolution of this high-profile legal battle will determine not just the fate of the National Guard in one city, but the future contours of American federalism itself.
