...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court’s decision on President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Illinois could impact “future crises.”
The Court denied an application on Tuesday to stay a lower court decision blocking the deployment of troops to support the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. Kavanaugh concurred with the decision but expressed some concerns.
“The Court’s legal interpretation, as I understand it, could lead to potentially significant implications for future crises that we cannot now foresee,” Kavanagh said.
Read More on News
...
Why It Matters
Tuesday's decision is a rare instance where the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not rule in favor of the Trump administration. The Court has previously sided with the administration on issues such as immigration enforcement and cuts at federal agencies.
Immigration enforcement has been a key focus of President Donald Trump’s administration. The Department of Homeland Security announced on December 10 that the agency’s enforcement operations have resulted in more than 605,000 deportations since January 20. The agency said 1.9 million people have voluntarily self-deported since January 2025.
What To Know
The Trump administration called National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois in October. The administration said federal immigration-enforcement efforts have been met with significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago.
The state of Illinois sued, and a district court barred the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard.
Supreme Court Ruling Today: No National Guard Deployment
The Court said the U.S. government “has not carried its burden” to show that the law “permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”
In Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, he discussed potential consequences of the decision.
Kavanaugh wrote, “Consider a hypothetical example. Suppose a mob rapidly gathers outside the U. S. Courthouse in Philadelphia in response to an unpopular decision (or to influence the outcome of a pending matter). Suppose also that the mob is threatening to storm the courthouse and attack the federal judges, prosecutors, and other personnel inside, and to damage or burn down the building, thereby preventing the execution of federal law. Suppose further that U. S. military forces cannot readily mobilize to deploy to the site in time, that the local police and federal court security officers are outnumbered, and that the President wants to federalize National Guard units to protect the courthouse and the judges, prosecutors, and other personnel. Under the Court’s order today, even in those circumstances the President presumably could not federalize the National Guard.”
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissent, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a dissent.
“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. I therefore respectfully dissent,” Alito wrote.
Who Deploys the National Guard?
National Guard troops are typically controlled by governors, but the president does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest, TIME reported.
What People Are Saying
The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion: “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
**Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion: “**The potential consequences, combined with the novelty and difficulty of the statutory issues addressed by the Court, underscore why I would not opine more broadly than necessary to resolve this application.”
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion: “In this case, the Court has no good reason to stray beyond the issues that the parties chose to present, and based on those arguments, the Court should grant the application. There is no basis for rejecting the President’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command. In concluding otherwise, the District Court likely committed both legal and factual error.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court’s order is not a final ruling, but it could impact other lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempts to deploy the National Guard in other Democratic-led cities.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines