National Guard troops are seen outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on October 9 in Broadview, Illinois. Photo / Joshua Lott, The Washington Post
A federal judge in Chicago today blocked United States President Donald Trump from deploying troops in Illinois, halting for now his Administration’s push to dispatch the National Guard in and around the country’s third-largest city.
The Administration is almost certain to appeal the decision, which is the second time in a week that a judge has rejected Trump’s efforts to place troops in a major city.
An appeals court panel today heard arguments about a different judge’s decision stopping Trump from sending troops to Portland, Oregon. The panel did not immediately issue a decision about whether it would allow the Portland deployment to proceed.
The dual legal developments illustrated the degree of pushback that Trump’s deployments face from local officials and residents, as well as the disapproval his efforts have encountered among some judges.
During the hearing in Chicago, US District Judge April Perry appeared deeply sceptical of the Trump Administration’s actions as well as its accuracy.
Perry pressed a Justice Department lawyer for answers, saying she had observed a “lack of credibility” in several declarations submitted by federal officials in the case and questioning how broadly troops might be used.
“I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” said Perry, who was appointed to the Bench by President Joe Biden last year.
Announcing her decision from the Bench, Perry said she was blocking National Guard troops from being federalised or deployed anywhere in Illinois.
Chicago and Portland are among several places where Trump has sent troops or vowed to do so, saying that the National Guard is needed to help combat crime and protect immigration enforcement officers.
Many local and state officials across the country have pushed back on Trump’s deployments and claims alike, saying the troops are not needed and that his depictions of their communities as crime-ridden are detached from reality.
In the Chicago and Portland cases, local and state leaders went to court to stop the deployments, arguing in both cases that Trump had acted unlawfully and saying that sending troops would only ratchet up tensions.
Perry appeared to acknowledge as much while announcing her decision.
“I find the deployment of National Guard is likely to lead to civil unrest,” she said.
Authorities in Illinois praised Perry’s decision. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (Democrat) called it “a win for the people of Chicago and the rule of law”.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said Trump had “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets” and suggested an appeal was coming.
“President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” Jackson said in a statement.
Officials in Illinois had sued the Trump Administration on Tuesday, accusing officials of illegally seizing control of the state’s National Guard.
They wrote in court papers that the legal challenge was needed “to protect the basic structure of American federalism from this Administration’s unprecedented intrusion”.
Texas National Guard troops began operating in the Chicago area yesterday. Sending those troops into Illinois, state officials wrote, amounts to a “grave intrusion on Illinois’s sovereignty”.
In early September, the Administration announced the start of an immigration enforcement mission in Chicago called “Operation Midway Blitz”.
This has prompted continual protests outside an Ice centre in Broadview, a Chicago suburb.
Federal agents have repeatedly fired tear gas, pepper balls and other projectiles towards crowds in response.
The Trump Administration said in court papers that federal officials faced “ongoing and sustained attacks” in Chicago, writing that troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property alike.
They wrote that the troop deployment was specifically tailored to the situation in and around Chicago and said that ultimately it is Trump’s “prerogative to determine where federalised Guardsmen are assigned”.
During more than two hours of arguments in Chicago, Perry said she was troubled by the possible scope of the troops’ actions when deployed there.
Trump has portrayed troops as necessary to fight crime there, calling Chicago “a great city where there’s a lot of crime”.
Killings and shootings have both dropped significantly in recent years, according to Chicago police crime statistics and a Washington Post analysis of FBI data.
“Will they be solving crime in Chicago?” Perry asked Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department lawyer.
“Certainly to an extent,” Hamilton said. But he said their mission would be “a protective one”.
“We are seeing sustained violence against federal agents and property”, and the local law enforcement response has not been sufficient, Hamilton said.
Perry also questioned him on federal officials’ actions in Illinois, saying evidence shows they are “escalating” things there.
“I’m trying to put this delicately,” Perry said.
“There has been evidence submitted that the very presence of federal agents, that the way they’re interacting with the populace, is itself the cause of violence.”
The judge also questioned Christopher Wells of the Illinois attorney-general’s office, asking him how state officials believe they have been harmed if the National Guard was limited to protecting federal property.
In the Portland case, US District Judge Karin Immergut - a Trump appointee who has been on the Bench since 2019 - last weekend had blocked the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops in the city, writing that “this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law”.
The Trump Administration then moved to send California National Guard members to Portland instead, which Oregon and California leaders quickly challenged.
Immergut blocked this move, too, prohibiting any National Guard members from being deployed in Oregon.
Demonstrations have occurred for weeks at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland.
The Trump Administration said the office “has been the target of actual and threatened violence”, writing in court papers that the troop deployment was meant to protect “federal employees and property from violence at the hands of violent mobs in Portland”.
Oregon officials said in court filings that the Trump Administration was wildly overstating the situation in the city.
They wrote last week that the “protests have been small in recent weeks - typically involving fewer than 30 people - and the protesters’ activities have not necessitated any arrests for months”.
Sending in troops, officials said, would only cause larger demonstrations.
In her ruling, Immergut said Trump’s determination that the military was needed in Portland “was simply untethered to the facts”.
Immergut wrote that while there had been protests involving violent behaviour at the Portland Ice facility in June, demonstrations since then had dwindled and “were generally peaceful in nature with only sporadic incidents of violence and disruptive behaviour.”
Eric McArthur, a Justice Department lawyer, said during the 9th Circuit hearing today that Immergut had incorrectly only considered the situation in Portland during the days and weeks leading up to the Administration’s announcement late last month that troops would go there.
McArthur said that when weighing the deployment, it was necessary to look at a longer period stretching to June.
The Trump Administration “first tried to manage the situation with the regular forces”, diverting federal law enforcement officials to Portland, McArthur said. When it became clear that this was not sustainable given the federal government’s limited resources, he said, Trump activated the National Guard.
“The President is entitled to say ‘Enough is enough’ and bring in the National Guard,” he said.
Stacy Chaffin, an assistant Oregon attorney-general, countered that it was important to look at where things stood at the time of Trump’s announcement in late September that he would send troops to Portland.
There was a big difference between the situation at the Portland Ice facility in June and in September, she said.
If Trump had moved to send troops into Portland in June, Chaffin said, it would be a “closer call”. But he didn’t, Chaffin said, and the federalisation of Oregon National Guard members happened in late September.
“We’re asking this court to look at the circumstances around when that happened,” she said.
Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, seemed sceptical of Oregon’s arguments today. He said that a president’s determinations and decisions are “not all driven by what we see on the streets” but also informed by behind-the-scenes information and discussions. Oregon officials did not have a full view into those details, Nelson said.
The 9th Circuit panel did not immediately issue a decision or say when it would do so.
Officials have also filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s campaign to use the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington DC.
Trump had sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles this summer amid protests over immigration raids. US District Judge Charles Breyer last month ruled that Trump’s Administration had broken the law and wilfully violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from domestic law enforcement actions.
Most of the troops had already been withdrawn from Los Angeles when Breyer ruled.
Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the troops who remained in Los Angeles at that point could protect federal property but not do anything to “execute the laws”, including carrying out arrests or traffic control.
He stayed his own ruling to give the Administration time to appeal, and the 9th Circuit has maintained that pause.
- Maria Luisa Paul and Anumita Kaur contributed to this report.