The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to stay a lower court ruling blocking President Donald Trump from stationing National Guard troops in Illinois, RedState reported Tuesday. RedState also reported that Justice Samuel Alito issued a strong dissent, essentially saying the courts were preventing the Trump administration from protecting federal officials.
As Bob Hoge wrote:
How do we reported on TuesdayThe Supreme Court has refused to uphold a lower court ruling blocking the Trump administration from stationing National Guard troops in Illinois. Many conservatives have been outraged, complaining that since President Trump 2.0 took office, judges at all levels are doing everything in their power to undermine his agenda. The Supreme Court has made several positive decisions, but not this time.
One person who wasn't amused was a Supreme Court justice himself: Justice Samuel Alito, and his dissent in the case doesn't soften his dissatisfaction with what he considers the “unreasonable” and “unwise” decisions made by the 6-3 majority. Moreover, Alito, who was known to make no secret of his opinions, thought it was wrong. took power from the executive branch:
The majority also did not give Trump enough respect after the president discovered that agitators were preventing immigration officers and other federal workers from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the National Guard needed to step in to help.
“Whatever you think of the current administration’s enforcement of immigration laws or the way ICE conducts its operations, protecting federal officials from potentially deadly attacks cannot be impeded,” Alito wrote.
Of course, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker accepted victory lap Anyway:
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker welcomed the court's decision in a statement, saying, “I am pleased that the Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy federal security in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump administration's ongoing abuse of power and slowing Trump's slide toward authoritarianism.”
As Joe Cunningham explainedPritzker may have unnecessarily exhausted himself because SCOTUS has not made a final decision on the matter.
The court emphasized that it is not making a final decision on whether the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard. It focuses on the urgent request before the Court, but avoids the general issue, which is consistent with other recent decisions.
In its decision, the Court made clear that it was not examining underlying constitutional issues or deciding whether Trump's orders were lawful. It also does not specifically prevent future deployments.
With that in mind, John Yoo, an attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, may have interpreted the SCOTUS decision differently. Yu appeared on Fox News America Reports and suggested the decision may not mean what Pritzker and others think.
YU: But the law says that the president should not be able to enforce the law with regular forces. What does regular force mean? We don't know; the Supreme Court had never decided this issue before yesterday. The Supreme Court now says regular forces mean you have to try using regular military forces first before creating a National Guard.
Oops. Yu even cited a precedent from the previous president for how this could play out.
So the unintended consequence here might be that the President would have to call in the 82nd Airborne Division, or the Marines, or the 101st Airborne Division, as President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education in the South to enforce desegregation. President Trump may have to do this first to protect these federal buildings and these ICE agents. And then if they failed, he could call in the National Guard.
LOOK:
🚨LMAO! Democrats' legislation against President Trump could now backfire by sending Marines to Chicago instead of the National Guard.
SCOTUS said “regular forces” should be used before the Guard
MARINE are “regular forces”
JB Pritzker screwed up🤣pic.twitter.com/jflO8dAauM
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 24, 2025
As Cunningham noted above, the SCOTUS decision is not a decision on the merits, so it is not the final word on the issue, especially in light of Alito's dissent noted above, Justice Neil Gorsuch's dissent, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. In fact, Yu believes SCOTUS could give President Trump an opportunity.
YU: Second, and I think this is more troubling, the Supreme Court is essentially telling President Trump to send in regular military forces and station them in Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send in the National Guard. I think the Governor would prefer to have National Guard troops patrolling the streets of Chicago rather than the 82nd Airborne Division and the Marine Corps.
Naturally, one could come to this conclusion, but J.B. Pritzker only cares about what will polish his presidential power. conscientious. Just as he's more than willing to see riots and the loss of innocent lives as a result of violence in Chicago and ICE protests, he might be salivating when he sees Trump ordering more US military forces to invade a state just to lend credence to his blather about “abuse of power” and “authoritarianism.”
While Trump may have his rights as chief executive, he also doesn't need to give a moron like Pritzker more fodder for his propaganda crusades or his likely 2028 presidential campaign.
Editor's note: We voted for mass deportations, not mass amnesty. Help us continue to fight back against those who try to go against the will of the American people.
Join RedState VIP today and use promo code MERRY74 and get 74% off your VIP membership.
