The Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday declined to allow the federal government to immediately deploy National Guard troops in Illinois, leaving in place a lower-court order that temporarily blocks the move.
The ruling came in an emergency application tied to the Trump administration’s attempt to federalize the Illinois National Guard following unrest connected to federal immigration enforcement operations.
The Court’s decision keeps a temporary restraining order in effect while the case continues in the lower courts.
RELATED: Oregon Judge Issues Final Judgment on National Guard Case — 3 Guesses and the First 2 Don’t Count
In an unsigned, per curiam order, the Supreme Court denied the federal government’s request for a stay, meaning it will not intervene at this stage to override the lower court’s ruling.
As a result, the National Guard cannot be federalized or deployed in Illinois for now under the authority cited by the administration.
Why the Court Rejected the Request
The dispute centers on a federal statute that allows the president to federalize the National Guard when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Court interpreted “regular forces” to mean the U.S. military, not civilian federal law-enforcement agencies.
That distinction matters because, under long-standing federal law, the military is generally barred from enforcing domestic laws unless Congress has specifically authorized it. The Court said the government did not show that the military could legally carry out the enforcement role described, or that such authority had been triggered.
Because of that, the justices concluded the government had not met the statutory requirements necessary to federalize the Guard at this stage.
What the Ruling Does Not Do
The Court emphasized that it was not issuing a final decision on whether or not the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard. It focuses on the emergency request before the Court while side-stepping the overall issue, which is not out of line with other recent rulings.
The Court made clear in its decision that it is not addressing the underlying constitutional questions, nor is it making a determination as to whether or not Trump's orders were lawful. It also, notably, does not prevent future deployments.
Separate Opinions
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but wrote separately, saying the Court could have denied the request on narrower grounds. Kavanaugh agreed “regular forces” means the military, but also said the government had also failed to show that “unable” was ever properly determined, which would itself be enough to deny the stay.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court unnecessarily restricted presidential authority and should have allowed the deployment to proceed. Alito pointed out that both parties in earlier briefs treated “regular forces” as meaning federal civilian law enforcement, so the court shouldn’t have raised a new interpretation on its own.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also dissented, arguing the Supreme Court should not have addressed the statutory questions in the case at this stage. According to Gorsuch, the dispute reached the Court in an emergency posture without full briefing, a developed factual record, or definitive rulings from lower courts, and warned that resolving complex questions of federal authority through an emergency order risked setting premature legal guidance. He went on to emphasize that the Court could have declined to intervene without interpreting the statute, leaving those issues to be resolved later through the normal appeals process.
What Happens Next
The case now returns to lower federal courts, where judges will continue reviewing the legality of the attempted National Guard federalization.
For now, the existing court order remains in effect, and no Guard deployment will occur unless a new ruling or legal pathway changes that status.
Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to include a summary of Justice Gorsuch's dissent as well.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code MERRY74 to receive 74% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member