Supreme Court rules on legality of Trump National Guard deployment to Illinois
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's request to allow the president to proceed with immediately deploying National Guard troops to Chicago — delivering a blow, if temporary, to President...
By Fox News · Fox News
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's request to allow the president to proceed with immediately deploying National Guard troops to Chicago — delivering a blow, if temporary, to President Donald Trump as he seeks to expand his federalization push across the U.S. The justices declined the Trump administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act. "At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois," the high court majority wrote. Three justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, publicly dissented. The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. 'UNTETHERED FROM REALITY': LAWYERS FOR TRUMP, OREGON, SPAR OVER NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IN COURT CLASH The update comes after the Trump administration asked the high court last week to stay a lower court order blocking Trump from immediately deploying federalized National Guard troops to Chicago. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court that a federal judge's earlier order, as well as the partial stay granted by a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, "improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property." Blocking the deployment of National Guard troops , Sauer argued, risks "jeopardizing the lives and safety of DHS officers," and prevents officials from taking what he argued are "reasonable and lawful measures" to protect federal agents from the "violent resistance" that they argue has persisted in Chicago. Lawyers for Illinois and Chicago disputed that contention, however. They argued in their Supreme Court filing that t…