Illinois has initiated a legal challenge against the Trump administration to prevent the deployment of federalized National Guard troops in Chicago, with proceedings set to progress this Thursday.
U.S. District Judge April Perry, assigned to the case, indicated that she would not take immediate action, emphasizing the need for time to review the government’s response before making a ruling.
Attorneys representing the state sought an urgent decision for a temporary restraining order, aiming to halt the activation of both the Illinois and Texas National Guards in the city as soon as Tuesday.
The lawsuit claims that the administration’s actions to send the National Guard into Chicago are both illegal and unconstitutional.
In a statement from the Illinois Attorney General’s office, it was articulated that, ‘The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor.’
Defendants in the suit include President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll.
The complaint outlines that the Trump administration’s actions have already inflicted serious and irreparable harm upon Illinois.
In response, the White House defended President Trump’s actions as lawful, attributing the need for federal intervention to ongoing violent riots and lawlessness in the region.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, ‘Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like [Illinois Gov. JB] Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets.’
Representatives from the Justice Department, Army, and Department of Homeland Security did not respond immediately to requests for comments, while the Defense Department declined to comment on the matter.
This lawsuit comes on the heels of similar actions in other parts of the country, as a federal judge in Oregon granted temporary injunctions over the weekend to block the deployment of federalized National Guard members to Portland.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, criticized government overreach, stating, ‘This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.’
Both the Illinois and Chicago lawsuits echo these sentiments regarding federal overreach.
The filing claims that the deployment of federalized military forces represents an infringement on state sovereignty and a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
It argues that an influx of federalized National Guard troops would exacerbate unrest, deteriorate community relations, and diminish public trust in law enforcement.
Additionally, they assert that the economic consequences will extend beyond local communities, impacting business activities and tourism, ultimately affecting the state’s tax revenue.
The state seeks a judicial declaration to deem the federalization and deployment of the National Guard in Illinois unconstitutional and/or unlawful.
President Trump’s threats of deploying troops in Chicago span back months, but recent developments have led to the green light for action over the last weekend.
However, the lawsuit denies claims of any existing emergency in the city, pointing out that Trump’s threats regarding troop deployment date back to a tweet from 2013, where he remarked, ‘we need our troops on the streets of Chicago, not in Syria.’
The administration has allegedly sought to ‘demonize’ cities that have elected Democratic leaders and escalated tensions within the state through increased federal law enforcement targeting undocumented immigrants and protesters.
The suit details incidents of federal agents employing aggressive tactics during protests near an immigration detention facility in the suburb of Broadview, including the use of chemical munitions against peaceful demonstrators.
Moreover, it outlines how dozens of heavily armed federal agents displayed their presence in downtown Chicago as a demonstration of force and control.
The community’s adverse reaction to these tactics reportedly led to widespread demonstrations.
The filed complaint also highlighted President Trump’s remarks made to military leaders, which described plans of deploying American soldiers against perceived political adversaries, particularly in areas governed by ‘radical-left Democrats.’
He referred to these neighborhoods as ‘training grounds for our military,’ inciting further concern over militarized federal presence in urban settings.
Illinois Governor Pritzker remarked in a CNN interview that it is the federal authorities that are transforming Chicago into a war zone, criticizing the government’s approach.
President Trump has similarly threatened intervention in other Democratic-led cities like New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans, even amid declining crime rates in these areas.
Statistics from the Chicago Police Department reveal a 29% decrease in the murder rate this year compared to last, while overall crime has seen a 13% decline.
This ongoing legal battle not only shapes the future of federal intervention in urban settings but also highlights the contentious relationship between state and federal authorities under the current administration.
image source from：nbcnews
