Hundreds of National Guard troops have assembled on the outskirts of Chicago, ready and waiting to be deployed in an effort to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement action in the city, providing protection to federal troops and properties. The soldiers themselves are not all locals- a little under half hail from Texas, on loan from a sympathetic Governor Abbott, no stranger to burdens regarding illegal immigration. The rest are from the Illinois National Guard, there against the wishes of their own Governor Pritzker, who has made no secret that he opposes federal intervention altogether. The plan stationed approximately 600 troops in the city for a six-week trial period with possible extension.
Meanwhile, frantic state and local leaders sought legal intervention to bar the imminent deployment, arguing the federal government had no jurisdiction. Quickly, a panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Guard’s involvement, a decision backed up by a federal appeals court following the administration’s outraged objection. Now, the unfolding of Trump’s plan for national order may rest with the Supreme Court of the United States, which began its new term this week with a docket already overflowing with Trump challenges.
Our nation’s third-largest city is now the focus of a stalled ‘Federal Protection Mission’, reminiscent of recent actions in Washington, DC, but more accurately similar to what played out in Los Angeles in June, when thousands of troops were deployed after ICE agents faced significant aggression while carrying out deportation orders. While Trump can unilaterally activate his guard in Washington, DC, protocol typically dictates that their usage in other states be dependent upon invitation from local authorities. Exceptions include when federal troops or property are at risk, as ICE agents were in LA, and when a ‘rebellion’ or ‘insurrection’ is potentially at hand.
Democratic Illinois Governor Pritzker denied the President’s request for an invitation days before the deployment and has kept his word regarding legal action towards the administration. Similar court efforts from California’s Governor Newsom have thus proven unsuccessful, and several hundred troops remain in LA months later. A Supreme Court decision would more thoroughly codify the extent of Trump’s authority and dictate the unfolding policy, which democratic opponents have likened to the federalization of autonomous US cities. In their decision, the federal appeals court that upheld the ruling banning Trump from acting found that “political opposition is not rebellion,” emboldening state and local leaders who oppose the intervention of the executive branch.
The latest in a series of dueling court cases lining an increasingly partisan divide, the decisions regarding the National Guard will be some of the most emphatic thus far. Almost in concert with the rulings handed down in Illinois, a court in Oregon issued a similar stay, which was likewise upheld. The matter will come down to whether the federal government has a right to extend its military authority nationally, as well as whether state and local governments reserve the ability to effectively nullify federal law by disregarding or obstructing its ongoing enforcement as they have regarding immigration.
With the midterm elections a year away, the National Guard could become a central issue depending on the timing of SCOTUS, who typically decide about half their cases in the final six weeks of a session that ends in June. While immigration enforcement may fall into a different category for many Americans, it will be a tough sell for more crime-ridden cities to decline intervention when their constituents are faced with crime and violence.
Is it appropriate for President Trump to deploy his National Guard in support of ICE agents? Should local government have to agree to such action?
Hilary Gunn is a Connecticut native with a degree in Criminal Justice from the George Washington University. She works for a nonprofit and has previously collaborated with the CT GOP as an activist, political campaign manager and field director, and social media organizer. She is currently serving in her fourth term of municipal office and has previously acted as a delegate on the Republican Town Committee.