The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied an application by the Trump administration, refusing to reinstate, for the time being, the President's ability to deploy National Guard troops into Illinois without the state governor's consent.
The administration had contended that federalizing the National Guard was necessary to address what President Trump described as ongoing violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at detention facilities within the Chicago area. However, two lower courts previously ruled against the administration's assertion that protests in Chicago constituted a "rebellion or danger of rebellion" against the U.S. government, which would grant the President the authority to intervene.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion stated that "At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois." The court further indicated that the President did not adequately explain why the situation in Illinois warranted an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement.
In its preliminary rejection of the Trump administration's arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the factual findings and perspectives of both the trial court judge and a three-judge appeals court panel. This panel included appointees by Presidents Trump, George W. Bush, and Obama.
While the case may potentially return to the Supreme Court after the court of appeals conducts full arguments and issues a final decision, the President is currently unable to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois without the governor's permission.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the unsigned majority opinion. They argued that the Court exceeded its authority by addressing the fundamental issue of the National Guard's legal deployment and the scope of presidential military use, rather than focusing on the more limited question the administration had presented. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote in the dissent: "On top of all this, the Court fails to explain why the President's inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose."