Photo: Alamy
The U.S. Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to approve President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize the Illinois National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement operations in the Chicago area.
The request, filed in a supplemental brief this week, represents a major escalation in the ongoing legal dispute over the scope of presidential authority to deploy military forces within the United States.
At the center of the case is a federal statute that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service “when he is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that the phrase “regular forces” should not be interpreted to mean the standing military, but rather “civilian law-enforcement officials that regularly ‘execute the laws.’”
He added that the president’s judgment in such matters should receive “a great level of deference” due to concerns involving separation of powers and national security.
Illinois and the city of Chicago have challenged the president’s authority, arguing that “regular forces” includes the active-duty military. State officials say the administration must show that even the armed forces are unable to enforce federal law before calling up the Guard. They contend that the Justice Department has not made that case.
The dispute arose after President Trump announced plans to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago to support federal agents involved in immigration and law enforcement operations. The administration cited what it described as organized resistance to federal activity in the city.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment, prompting the administration to appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and now to the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department’s request has reignited debate over the limits of presidential authority in domestic military operations. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the administration could significantly broaden executive power to use military forces on U.S. soil, particularly in enforcing immigration laws.
Legal experts note that while courts have historically shown deference to the president on matters of national defense, using troops in civilian contexts carries distinct constitutional and statutory limitations.