President Donald Trump on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, escalating a high-stakes legal fight over presidential authority to use military forces to quell an organized domestic uprising against federal law enforcement.
The administration’s emergency appeal follows rulings by a federal district judge and an appellate panel that temporarily blocked the deployment of roughly 700 Guard troops — 300 from Illinois and 400 from Texas — to the Chicago area.
In a filing to the Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to intervene, arguing that the president’s order was lawful under federal statutes that permit the use of the Guard when “rebellion” or “obstruction” prevents enforcement of U.S. law. Sauer said the situation around a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Ill., meets that standard.
“Violent agitators have repeatedly obstructed access to a critical federal immigration facility,” Sauer wrote. “Local forces have failed to respond, even when federal agents face life-threatening violence.” He said the deployment was necessary to “protect immigration officers and federal buildings” and to relieve federal agents diverted from other assignments to secure the facility.
The dispute centers on Trump’s use of Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize a state’s National Guard when civil authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. The administration says that provision justifies the move, while Illinois officials argue it amounts to an unconstitutional use of military force within state borders.
U.S. District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, rejected Trump’s rationale earlier this month, ruling that “no substantial evidence of rebellion” or obstruction existed in Illinois. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld her decision, saying that while the president may call up Guard troops, he cannot deploy them without clear proof that state authorities cannot maintain order.
Sauer said the lower courts “indefensibly minimized” the risks faced by immigration officers and failed to show proper deference to the president’s national security authority. He asked the justices to stay the injunction “to prevent further endangerment of federal personnel.”
The Supreme Court gave Illinois and Chicago until Monday to respond to the government’s request.
The petition marks the latest in a series of cases testing the limits of Trump’s executive power during his second term. The Supreme Court — which has previously sided with the administration on several emergency matters — now faces another politically charged decision balancing presidential authority and state sovereignty.
Illinois officials, joined by the city of Chicago, sued to block the deployment last week, arguing that the president was improperly invoking emergency powers to override state control of its National Guard.
“There is no rebellion here, and no justification for turning Illinois into a militarized zone,” Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement.
Tensions have risen outside the ICE facility in Broadview, where federal officials say several demonstrations have turned violent. On Friday, police arrested 11 protesters who had attempted to block vehicle access to the complex. Activists accused federal agents of excessive force, citing past use of tear gas and pepper spray on demonstrators.
The Illinois case is one of several pending court battles over Trump’s decision to deploy the Guard in response to anti-ICE protests across the country. A federal judge in Oregon has similarly halted a troop deployment to Portland, while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed one in Los Angeles to proceed earlier this summer, noting a more severe threat level there.
The administration maintains that local officials in several Democratic-led states have “failed to maintain public order” near federal facilities, forcing Washington to act.
“When state and local authorities refuse to protect federal employees and property, the Constitution requires the president to ensure the laws are faithfully executed,” Sauer said.
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up the case or issue an emergency order.