The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago marks a significant turning point in the relationship between state authority and federal military power. This ruling could lead to unexpected outcomes, possibly even involving active-duty Marines in Chicago instead.
On November 12, 2019, the Court refused to lift a lower court’s restriction that barred the federal activation of Illinois National Guard units. This decision emerged after challenges from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago officials, who contended that President Trump lacked the legal backing to utilize federalized National Guard troops for immigration-related tasks in their state. The administration’s plan aimed to deploy these troops alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to curb protests near the Broadview ICE facility in suburban Chicago.
The core of this legal clash lies in how military law distinguishes between “regular forces” and National Guard troops when not under direct federal authority. The Supreme Court majority indicated that the administration must first prove that regular military forces are inadequate for law enforcement purposes before resorting to National Guard involvement. The justices made it clear: the Guard should not be the preliminary option.
“The term ‘regular forces’ … likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military,” the Court stated in its unsigned decision. “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.”
This interpretation may have paradoxical implications. Should President Trump continue to seek military assistance for federal operations in Chicago, he might need to rely on active-duty personnel, such as Marines, before turning to the National Guard. A blunt reaction on social media encapsulated this shift: “SCOTUS said ‘regular forces’ must be used before the Guard. MARINES are ‘regular forces.’”
This legal framework was not built on federal overreach alone but was bolstered by vigorous opposition from state leaders, including Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul. They argued that military involvement in domestic law enforcement, particularly without state approval, violates both statutory protections and the Constitution’s principle of federalism. Raoul emphasized, “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state’s objection do not exist in Illinois.”
The backdrop for these events was “Operation Midway Blitz,” a Trump administration initiative targeting illegal immigration. Protests near the Broadview ICE facility had turned confrontational, yet federal attorneys maintained that 300 National Guard troops from Illinois and Texas were essential for securing federal operations, citing injuries to a handful of agents and more than 20 arrests during protests. However, the courts concluded that such unrest did not justify military intervention.
U.S. District Judge April Perry highlighted this conclusion during initial hearings, stating, “There is no credible evidence of a danger of rebellion or that federal law enforcement is unable to execute the law.” This judgment laid the groundwork for the decision to reject the military deployment, a ruling that was subsequently upheld by the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court’s decision to affirm this ruling with a 6-3 vote further solidified the rejection.
The dissenting justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, presented an alternative view. Alito expressed concern that “The protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted.” He criticized the Court for stepping in too soon and accused it of bending legal terminology for political gain.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the federal government’s position, arguing that the President’s role as Commander in Chief should shield such actions from judicial scrutiny. He claimed that current law permits the President to federalize Guard units as needed to enforce federal laws. Nevertheless, the Court’s majority stood firm against this argument.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the ruling but suggested a more limited rationale, opening the door for further legal discussions in future hearings. This implies that the matter is not entirely settled, allowing room for ongoing debates regarding military deployment in civilian contexts.
This ruling not only challenges the immediate objectives of the Trump administration but also restricts federal dependency on National Guard forces unless specific legal criteria are met. It serves as a vital precedent: states can resist federal ambitions to militarize local law enforcement unless it has been established that active-duty forces are incapable of managing any given situation.
This dynamic raises the possibility that if the administration is still intent on military influence in Chicago, it may only have legal justification to deploy “regular forces,” which include active military units such as Marines. Critics noted this twist with skepticism on social media, some humorously deeming Pritzker’s legal victory a potential misstep. “LMAO! The Democrat lawfare against President Trump may now BACKFIRE, resulting in MARINES being sent into Chicago instead of National Guard,” one tweet proclaimed, mocking the Governor’s position.
The political reactions have not been uniform. Illinois leaders championed the Supreme Court ruling; Governor Pritzker deemed it a “big win for Illinois and American democracy,” while Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson commended the Court for standing against President Trump’s military strategies. On the other hand, Republican State Representative Chris Miller expressed disappointment, claiming, “The only people the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of today are illegal immigrants and criminals… The federal government should intervene by any means necessary.”
Meanwhile, the White House expressed its determination to pursue its enforcement priorities through other legal frameworks. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson remarked, “The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”
This case now serves as a focal point in the ongoing legal struggle over presidential powers, the military’s role in civil governance, and state rights against federal encroachment. If anything, it has illuminated a trajectory for future actions: the National Guard stands sidelined until active-duty troops, like the Marines, are shown to be ineffective according to legal standards.
The potential for Marines on the streets of Chicago remains uncertain, but the Supreme Court’s ruling has irrevocably altered the legal landscape, revealing unexpected consequences that neither side fully foresaw.
"*" indicates required fields
