The Supreme Court rejected United States President Donald Trump’s request to send National Guard agents to Chicago to protect ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Service) agents.
The decision, which was made despite dissenting votes from conservative judges, represented a significant setback for the.
The National Guard serves as a state military force subordinate to state governors, except when called into federal service by the president.
In September, Trump ordered troops to , the third-largest city in the US, and Portland, Oregon, following his previous deployments to Los Angeles, Memphis and Washington, D.C.
The American president and his allies have described them as anarchic, crime-ridden and rife with violent protests. His administration has said troops are needed to protect federal property and employees.
Democratic mayors and governors, along with other Trump critics, have stated that these allegations are a false version of the situation and a pretext for sending troops, accusing Trump of .
Federal judges expressed skepticism of the government’s alarmist view of the protests, which local law enforcement officials said were limited in size, largely peaceful and controllable by its own forces — a far cry from the “war zone” conditions described by Trump.
White House opposes the measure
Earlier, a White House spokeswoman said the decision will not impede Trump’s efforts to enforce immigration laws, protect federal workers and “safeguard the American public.”
“He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement and ensure that protesters did not destroy federal buildings and property,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told CNN.
“Nothing in today’s decision undermines this central agenda,” he said.
“This is a significant rejection of President Trump’s efforts to use federal troops to supplement immigration enforcement, especially in Democratic-run jurisdictions,” said Steve Vladeck, Supreme Court analyst at CNN and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.
“It is difficult to understand how the government can continue to use this obscure 1908 authority to try to mobilize federalized National Guard troops.”
Federal law does not apply to the protection of agents
Vladeck described the ruling as “by far the most significant defeat the Supreme Court has dealt Trump all year.”
Federal law allows a president to federalize the National Guard when he can no longer enforce the laws of the United States with “regular forces.”
During the process, a debate arose over whether the term “regular forces” referred to regular armed forces or federal agents, such as those who work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In its ruling, the court stated that the term “probably” refers to the standing armed forces.
Furthermore, the court stated that the possibility of federalizing the National Guard, under the law Trump tried to invoke, “likely applies only in cases where the armed forces could lawfully enforce the laws.”
In other words, the court suggested, this law does not apply to the protection of agents who enforce immigration laws.
“Therefore, at least in this position, the government has failed to demonstrate that” the law at issue in the case “permits the president to federalize the National Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the court said.
The decision leaves Trump with few options if he wants to continue sending troops to cities — but not without any.
It seems likely that the president could still invoke the Insurrection Act, for example, to send regular troops to Chicago and other cities.
This could be a politically sensitive move, however, because it challenges the long-standing ban on the use of armed forces for law enforcement.
