Appeals Court Upholds Deployment Block
A federal appeals court on Thursday, October 16, 2025, upheld a lower court's decision to block President Donald Trump's plan to deploy National Guard troops within Illinois. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, issued a unanimous ruling that affirmed a temporary restraining order previously put in place by a district court judge. While the court allowed the federalization of the National Guard troops to stand, it maintained the prohibition on their active deployment within the state.
Background to the Proposed Deployment
President Trump had sought to deploy approximately 500 National Guard troops to Illinois, comprising 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and 200 members of the Texas National Guard. This move was part of a broader initiative, reportedly named 'Operation Midway Blitz,' aimed at combating crime and protecting federal immigration agents and facilities. The administration asserted that federal facilities, particularly an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, had 'come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing federal law enforcement activities.' The President invoked his authority under Title 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits federalizing the National Guard in cases of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' or if regular forces are unable to execute U.S. laws.
District Court's Initial Ruling
The appeals court's decision followed an initial ruling by U.S. District Court Judge April Perry on October 9, 2025. Judge Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment after finding a 'lack of credibility' in federal officials' declarations and stating that there was no substantial evidence of a 'danger of rebellion' in Illinois. The lawsuit challenging the deployment was filed by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, arguing that the federalization was unlawful and intruded upon the state's sovereignty. Judge Perry also criticized a 'troubling trend' of equating protest with riots.
Court's Reasoning and Implications
The three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit, consisting of Judges Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner, David Hamilton, and Amy St. Eve, concluded that 'the facts do not justify' the President's actions in Illinois. They explicitly stated, 'Political opposition is not rebellion,' and found 'insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois.' The ruling means that while the National Guard members remain under federal control, they cannot be actively deployed on the ground for law enforcement or patrol duties within Illinois. This case is part of a larger legal struggle between the Trump administration and several states over the domestic use of the National Guard, with similar challenges arising in cities like Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California.
5 Comments
Bella Ciao
This ruling is crucial. Prevents weaponizing the Guard against citizens.
Comandante
This is a dangerous precedent. The President should be able to secure federal assets.
Bermudez
It's reassuring that the judiciary is scrutinizing executive actions, ensuring proper justification. Yet, if there truly are coordinated assaults, the federal government needs effective ways to respond.
Muchacha
They're ignoring the violence! Our cities are burning, and courts do nothing.
Manolo Noriega
On one hand, preventing the misuse of the National Guard domestically is vital for civil liberties. On the other hand, the article outlines concerns about threats to ICE facilities, which shouldn't be ignored.