President Trump’s bold move to secure Chicago with National Guard troops has just hit a judicial roadblock.
The Hill reported that a federal judge slapped a temporary restraining order on Thursday, stopping the deployment of hundreds of federalized National Guard members across Illinois, particularly in the Chicago area, following a lawsuit from state and local officials who cried foul over federal overreach.
The saga kicked off on September 26, 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security requested backup to shield ICE facilities in Illinois amid escalating tensions.
By October 4, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized federalizing Illinois troops, and soon after, 300 Illinois Guard members, alongside 200 from Texas, rolled into the Chicago area on October 8, 2025. These troops were set for a 60-day mission to protect federal property and personnel.
But Illinois and Chicago officials weren’t having it, filing a lawsuit on October 6, 2025, claiming the deployment trampled on state sovereignty.
They argued Trump was inflating small protests at an ICE facility in Broadview, a Chicago suburb, as an excuse for heavy-handed federal action. Reports of rubber bullets and tear gas at the protests, plus slashed tires for ICE employees, paint a messy picture, but is it rebellion or just chaos?
Enter U.S. District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, who on Thursday, partially granted the temporary restraining order, blocking two key Defense Department memos—one federalizing Illinois troops and another deploying Texas forces to multiple cities.
She didn’t detail what she rejected, promising clarity on October 10, 2025, while setting the order’s expiration for October 23, 2025. A hearing on October 22, 2025, will decide if this pause extends further.
Judge Perry also swatted down the Trump administration’s plea to delay her ruling for an appeal, showing no mercy to federal arguments. The Justice Department insisted that protecting immigration enforcement officers, facing heightened risks, justified the deployment. Yet, DHS’s claim of a “coordinated assault” by violent groups tied to domestic terror organizations was dismissed by state officials as pure fiction.
President Trump’s long-standing frustration with Chicago’s crime woes, dating back to a social media post on November 7, 2016, fuels his push for action.
On Wednesday, he even called for jailing Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a fiery jab at local leadership. Clearly, Trump sees this as a battle for law and order, not a political stunt.
Speaking of Pritzker, he took to social media after the ruling, declaring, “Donald Trump is not a king — and his administration is not above the law,” on October 9, 2025, via platform X.
Nice soundbite, Governor, but isn’t it a bit rich to cry tyranny when federal agents are dodging slashed tires and pepper-sprayed crowds? State sovereignty matters, but so does protecting those enforcing our laws.
Pritzker didn’t stop there, adding on X, “Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois.” Fair point on paper, but if protests are spiraling into violence at federal facilities, shouldn’t someone step in before it’s too late? This isn’t about rebellion; it’s about responsibility.
Local leaders remain adamant that Trump’s using these protests as a flimsy pretext for overreach, a claim echoed in their legal filings. Their motion warned of the “inevitability” of such actions being illegal, a dramatic flair for a situation that’s already tense. Yet, one wonders if their resistance is more about optics than principle.
The U.S. Northern Command defended the deployment, stating late on October 8, 2025, that these soldiers are there to “protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing federal functions.”
That’s a straightforward mission, not a military takeover, though you wouldn’t know it from the apocalyptic rhetoric coming from state officials.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department argued that deciding where federalized Guard members serve is the President’s call, warning that judicial interference undermines the separation of powers.
It’s a compelling point—should a single judge really hamstring the executive branch’s ability to respond to threats? This isn’t about feelings; it’s about constitutional clarity.
Elsewhere, a federal appeals court on October 9, 2025, tackled Trump’s similar National Guard move in Oregon, where a lower court’s block was lifted on Wednesday, though deployment there remains barred for now. This parallel fight shows the stakes aren’t just local—they’re national. How much power does the President have to federalize troops over state objections?
