Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Clean And Reliable Grid Affordability Act (SB25) Is The Only Bill This Veto Session That Can Slash Skyrocketing Electric Rate Increases
Next Post: Noem to Pritzker: No
Posted in:
President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops within Illinois will likely remain on hold through mid-November after the U.S. Supreme Court sought more information from lawyers Wednesday.
The request ended 12 days of silence from the justices. The Trump administration asked the high court on Oct. 17 to undo an order from U.S. District Judge April Perry that’s blocked the troop deployment since Oct. 9.
Perry’s order was originally temporary and set to expire after two weeks. However, Justice Department lawyers agreed last week to let it stand until a final judgment in her courtroom, and pending the Supreme Court’s review.
Litigation around National Guard deployment in Illinois, Oregon and California has centered on a federal law that allows the president to call into federal service members of any state’s National Guard if there is an invasion or rebellion — or if the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
* SCOTUSblog…
Although the court had directed the challengers to respond in just three days, suggesting that it might act quickly, nine days passed before the justices issued an order in the case – but they did not rule on the government’s request. Instead, they ordered both the Trump administration and the challengers to file new briefs discussing whether, for purposes of the federal law on which Trump relied to call up the National Guard – which allows him to do so when (among other things) he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States” – “the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation” of the law.
The new briefs, the court said, should be no more than 15 pages long and should be filed by Nov. 10, with 10-page reply briefs to follow a week later – a much less expedited timeframe than the court had set for the original briefing.
* Reuters…
The administration has said that the words “regular forces” mean that the president can call up the National Guard if non-military federal agents who regularly enforce federal laws cannot properly do so.
In an October 10 written ruling, [Judge April Perry] said that historical sources indicate that “regular forces” means only members regularly enlisted in the military, including the Army and Navy, as opposed to the National Guard.
Perry wrote that “in order for the President to call forth the militia to execute the laws, the President must be incapable with the regular forces - that is, lacking the power and force with the military alone - to execute the law.”
Trump’s administration “made no attempt to rely on the regular forces before resorting to federalization of the National Guard,” Perry said, adding that there are other limits on the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.
* Related…
* The Guardian | Revealed: Pentagon orders states’ national guards to form ‘quick reaction forces’ for ‘crowd control’: The memo, signed on 8 October by Maj Gen Ronald Burkett, the director of operations for the Pentagon’s national guard bureau, sets thresholds for the size of the quick reaction force to be trained in each state, with most states required to train 500 national guard members, for a total of 23,500 troops nationwide. As authority, Burkett cited Donald Trump’s August executive order that deployed the guard to fight crime in Washington DC. The same order required the secretary of defense to create “a standing National Guard quick reaction force … available for rapid nationwide deployment” in “quelling civil disturbances”.
* Politico | Trump’s National Guard DC deployment extended into 2026: National Guard troops patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., will stay in place until at least February, a defense official said — but the extension is open-ended until the mission is considered complete. The orders to stay in Washington were likely to lapse in November, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the extension this week, said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the orders.
* The Hill | DOJ admits National Guard was briefly sent to Portland despite court order: “We’ll discuss later whether that’s contempt and in direct violation of my TRO, but we’re moving on,” the judge said. It was not clear how many soldiers were sent or what they were tasked to do. Lin said they “completed the shift.” U.S. Northern Command, which oversees the National Guard troops who have been federalized, declined to provide additional information or comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
* The Texas Tribune | Majority of Texans oppose National Guard deployment to cities out of state, poll finds: The survey, conducted by the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas, Austin between Oct. 10 and Oct. 20, found that 43% of Texans “strongly oppose” the move and 8% “somewhat oppose” it. Forty-one percent of Texans supported the move.
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 11:39 am
Previous Post: Clean And Reliable Grid Affordability Act (SB25) Is The Only Bill This Veto Session That Can Slash Skyrocketing Electric Rate Increases
Next Post: Noem to Pritzker: No
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
In 1962 and 1963 JFK federalized the Mississippi and Alabama National Guards.
Is this relevant? I think so and I believe it will affect any SCOTUS decision. If I am missing something please explain.
Comment by Mason County Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 12:19 pm
@ Mason
Please explain why Kennedy did so. Then compare that with why Trump is doing so.
If the two contexts differ, then context matters unless you want to suggest any executive anytime can use the military against the citizenry for any purpose under any reason they choose.
Kennedy sent in the troops because half of that state’s populations was being denied equality before the law, and equal opportunity to access essential services provided by the state.
Trump is doing so because he wants to capture undocumented workers and deport them.
These are different reasons, so the argument you offer is not compelling.
However, I agree that this Supreme Court of the U.S. may well rule that it doesn’t matter why a president mobilizes the guard. I also am not surprised that this court is ignoring the arguments make by the executive (e.g., anarchy on the streets, democratic strong holds, etc.), and only wants to concentrate on the legal definition of “regular forces.”
Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 12:44 pm
@HW. It is not the why that counts it is the legal authority. Kennedy and Eisenhower federalized state guards to enforce federal law because state authorities would not. That will be same argument that Trump uses, Illinois not allowing federal laws to be enforced. Causes certainly different
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 2:28 pm
===That will be same argument that Trump uses, ===
If memory serves, the guards had already been activated by the governors to block the implementation of federal laws.
That’s not the same argument here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 2:32 pm
=- H-W - Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 12:44 pm:=
It wrote this to determine the legality of the legal process and not anyone’s personal opinion about the situation.
Comment by Mason County Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 2:39 pm
@DuPage Saint, Illinois is not stopping federal laws from being enforced. Deportation flights are taking off, Broadview is operating (without oversight and in unsafe conditions), immigration courts are hearing cases. The state police and local police are stepping back and watching the federal enforcement officers do their federal job (sometimes with excessive force and unconstitutional deprivation of due process), trying to maintain residents’ respect and cooperation to help stop crime and keep the roads and neighborhoods safe.
Comment by potter Thursday, Oct 30, 25 @ 2:50 pm