SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito made it clear in a blistering dissent that he disagrees strongly with the court's majority ruling on President Donald Trump's efforts to deploy the National Guard in Chicago in an effort to reduce violent crime there.
On Tuesday, December 23, 2025, the court ruled 6-3 against Trump's plan to federalize roughly 300 National Guard members, upholding lower court decisions that found the president did not meet the legal criteria for such action.
The controversy began when the Trump administration invoked a seldom-used federal law to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, citing threats and assaults on ICE officers by protesters.
The administration argued that Illinois’ Democratic leaders and local police failed to adequately respond, leaving federal personnel vulnerable amid escalating unrest.
Illinois, however, pushed back hard, filing a lawsuit to stop the deployment and claiming the protests were largely peaceful and under control by local forces.
The Supreme Court’s majority, in an unsigned order, sided with lower courts, asserting that Trump failed to justify using the National Guard since “regular forces” refer to the U.S. military, not civilian agencies like ICE.
They further noted that deploying the National Guard for protective duties might not qualify as executing federal laws and could even skirt the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic policing without Congressional approval.
Apparently, the majority thinks sending in tanks before guardsmen is the logical first step—talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, didn’t hold back, slamming the majority for what he called “unwise” and “imprudent” determinations.
“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote, cutting straight to the heart of why federal safety must trump state posturing.
His point is sharp: if we can’t protect our own officers, what’s the point of debating legal minutiae while chaos brews on the streets?
Alito also warned that this ruling could ripple beyond Chicago, as Trump has eyed similar National Guard deployments in cities like Portland and parts of California for immigration enforcement and crime crackdowns.
Illinois, meanwhile, argued that such federal overreach harms its sovereign right to manage local law enforcement, a claim that sounds noble until you consider who foots the bill when protests spiral out of control.
While progressive agendas might cheer this as a win against federal “militarization,” everyday Americans—homeowners, retirees, and small business owners—may wonder who’s really looking out for public safety when push comes to shove.
