The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump’s administration on December 23, 2025, denying an emergency request to deploy National Guard troops on Illinois streets while a court battle over a restraining order continues. The decision, which came after more than two months of deliberation, represents a rare setback for the Trump administration at the nation’s highest court and a significant victory for Illinois’ Democratic leadership in their ongoing struggle over federal authority and state rights.
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s push to use federalized National Guard troops to bolster immigration enforcement in Chicago and other American cities, a move fiercely opposed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and other Democratic officials. The administration had argued that such deployments were necessary to protect federal personnel and property from what it described as violent resistance to immigration law enforcement. However, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority questioned the legal foundation for this action, specifically the president’s interpretation of federal law regarding his authority to federalize the Guard.
In its order, the court pointedly rejected the administration’s claim that the phrase “regular forces” in federal law could be interpreted to mean civilian law enforcement agents, such as those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, as reported by the Chicago Tribune, the justices concluded, “The term ‘regular forces’ … likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service … the President must be ‘unable’ with the regular military ‘to execute the laws of the United States.’ Because the statute requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws.”
This legal distinction proved pivotal. The Supreme Court’s order, while not a final ruling, keeps in place a restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry on October 9, 2025, which blocks the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois. Judge Perry had found no substantial evidence of a “danger of rebellion” in Illinois and saw no reason to believe that protests had impeded Trump’s immigration crackdown. The restraining order was later extended indefinitely, pending further hearings.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—dissented from the majority’s decision, with Thomas and Alito writing that the court “has unnecessarily and unwisely departed from standard practice.” Their dissent underscores the deep divisions within the court over the scope of executive power, especially in the context of immigration and domestic military deployments.
For Illinois officials, the Supreme Court’s decision was a cause for celebration. Governor Pritzker called it “a big win for Illinois and American democracy,” adding in his statement, “This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism. American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to face masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that the President can deploy the military to their streets.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul also welcomed the ruling, emphasizing the constitutional limits on federal authority over state militias. “Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states — believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state,” Raoul said. “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state’s objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson echoed these sentiments, declaring the ruling a victory against what he described as the Trump administration’s attempts to “militarize and demonize our city.” In his statement, Johnson asserted, “This decision doesn’t just protect Chicago — but protects cities around the country who have been threatened by Trump’s campaign against immigrants and Democratic-led cities.”
The Trump administration had sought to deploy about 700 troops in Illinois—300 from the Illinois National Guard and an additional 400 federalized from Texas. However, after the legal challenges mounted, the Texas contingent was sent home, leaving 300 Illinois Guard troops under federal control until April 15, 2026. Despite their federalization, these troops have carried out no significant operational missions and have spent most of their time stationed at a northern Illinois base, raising questions about the necessity and intent behind their deployment.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the White House signaled that it would not be deterred from its immigration enforcement agenda. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.”
On the ground, U.S. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino took to social media after the ruling, posting, “Don’t worry, Chicago, we will be here for YEARS!” and emphasizing his agents’ commitment to “help Chicago rid their streets of criminal illegal aliens.” His remarks, laden with bravado, reflect the hardline stance the administration has taken on immigration enforcement, even as its legal authority faces mounting scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the administration’s emergency request is not the final word in this legal saga. The order is preliminary, and further litigation is expected as the underlying case continues to wind its way through the courts. However, the decision is likely to influence other lawsuits challenging Trump’s efforts to deploy the military in Democratic-led cities nationwide. Already, similar legal battles have played out in states like Oregon, California, and Tennessee, with mixed outcomes.
Governor Pritzker, who has been a vocal critic of Trump and is seen as a rising figure within the Democratic Party, has repeatedly warned against the normalization of National Guard deployments for domestic law enforcement and political purposes. He has argued that such moves are “unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it is un-American.” Pritzker’s stance has resonated with many Democrats, especially as he eyes a potential 2028 White House bid.
On the other side, the Trump administration has maintained that its actions are necessary to safeguard federal personnel and enforce immigration laws in the face of what it characterizes as violent opposition and uncooperative local governments. Trump himself has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—a two-century-old law—to justify broader military deployments on domestic soil if he deems them necessary.
Congressional leaders from Illinois, including U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, praised the Supreme Court’s decision, stating, “It’s long past time for the Trump Administration to back off Chicago. The majority of Americans believe they’ve gone too far, and even the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority refused to greenlight this blatantly unlawful overreach. Our government is supposed to help our communities — not go to war with them.”
As the legal and political battles continue, the Supreme Court’s order stands as a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of executive power, federalism, and the appropriate role of the military in American life. For now, Illinois streets remain free of federally deployed National Guard troops, but the broader questions raised by this case are far from settled.
