In a scathing hearing which culminated in the blocking of President Donald Trump’s move to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry said she saw “no credible evidence” of any rebellion in the state justifying Trump’s move.
Choosing to defend the Constitution in the face of power, Perry found the directive to be violative of the Constitution.
She came down heavily on the Trump administration saying, the move would “only add fuel to the fire that the defendants themselves have started.”
(Via criticalreport.com)
She proceeded to restrain Trump and his administration from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard within Illinois till October 23, adding that it would be decided in a telephone hearing on October 22 whether the Temporary Restraining Order should be extended for another 14 days.
Importantly, she also raised questions on “Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) credibility on what is going on in the streets of Chicago”, relying on judicial findings from other cases about the “unreliable evidence” used by the DHS to establish crimes encountered by its agents.
The judge was reportedly frustrated during the hearing, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) fumbled for answers on the powers the National Guard troops would be allowed to exercise in Illinois.
She was also very concerned about what boundaries had been set for them.
"What are they being trained and deployed to do? "I am very much struggling to find where this would stop," Perry said.
The lawyer for DOJ, Eric Hamilton was evidently short of answers.
While he claimed that they were being deployed on a "federal protective mission," he did not know what exactly the mission entailed.
On the other hand, the U.S. Northern Command said in a statement that 500 National Guard members were mobilized — 300 from Illinois and 200 from Texas to “protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property”.
Is the deployment even lawful?
President Trump claimed on Wednesday, "Everything we’re doing is very lawful. What they’re doing is not lawful”.
But what does the law say?
Under federal law, the president may assume control of the National Guard – which is ordinarily under the control of the Governor, in cases of invasion, rebellion/ danger of rebellion, or an inability to execute the law “with the regular forces”, however “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States”, according to Section 12406 of Title 10.
The National Guard serves in three types of capacities.
- "State active duty": Troops are under state command and state funded.
- Title 32: When troops are under state command but federally funded.
- Title 10: When guard members are both federally controlled and funded.
As per law, even under Title 10, orders to mobilize the troops shall be issued through the state governors.
Further, the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. While this Act does not apply when National Guard report to a state's governor, it does apply when the National Guard is federalized and put under the command of the U.S. president.
The Trump administration has claimed it is unable to "execute the laws of the United States", i.e. immigration enforcement, due to civilian protests.
(Via abcnews.com)
However, earlier the National Guard has been federalized and deployed domestically to respond to civil unrest only in extreme circumstances.
Moreover, their deployment in circumstances as the present is completely unprecedented.
While district courts rule one way or the other, experts believe the matter will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
The judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution
Until that happen, the decisions like the one by Judge April Perry not only challenge the legality of the Trump administration’s justification for using federal troops, but also underscore the judiciary’s role as a guardian against arbitrary exercises of power.
Ultimately, regardless of whether the Supreme Court ultimately upholds or overturns this restraint, Perry’s ruling stands as a reminder that the Constitution, not the presidency, governs America.
Her decision has stood between the imposition of military rule and further infringement of Americans’ civil liberties for another 14 days in the name of executing federal law.
For Illinois, it is a victory for democratic institutions — and for the principle that no leader, however powerful, stands above the law.
“No place for kings”
Illinois, for its part, has been fighting Trump’s move tooth, nail and hammer.
The judge’s order restraining deployment of the National Guard troops was in fact passed in a lawsuit filed by the state of Illinois seeking to block the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago.
The Democrats have insisted that the Trump administration be held accountable for its actions and be made to function in the confines of the Constitution.
The term ‘king’ is used satirically by the opposition to protest against Trump.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, for instance, lauded the verdict in a post on X, reiterating, "Donald Trump is not a king - and his administration is not above the law.”
He added, “Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago," Pritzker wrote.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson echoed the sentiments in a statement, saying, “There is no rebellion in Chicago. There are just good people standing up for what is right”.
"The judge established that the Trump administration is unreliable. They lie, misrepresent, and put people in danger," he added. "We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to end the Trump administration’s war on Chicago."
Join the No Kings protest on October 18
As Illinois celebrates this legal victory, we at ‘Hands Off United’ urge American citizens to carry the momentum forward at the No Kings protest on October 18.
The protest aims to remind leaders that the United States was founded on the rejection of monarchy and the embrace of accountable governance.
By showing up and speaking out, participants can reaffirm that power in America flows from the people, not from any single individual.
In times of political turbulence, civic engagement remains the strongest safeguard against authoritarian impulses, and serves as the loudest reminder that this nation was never meant to have or be ruled by kings.