A federal judge on Thursday granted a partial restraining order to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, after state and local leaders objected to the deployment.
In a ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge April Perry did not immediately explain what limits she was placing on the deployment, but said her decision comes down to a “credibility determination,” and she found the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of recent events in the Chicago area to be unreliable.
The judge ruled there is no credible evidence of an organized rebellion in Illinois, despite multiple protests and some assaults against federal agents, nor was there any evidence the federal government has been unable to enforce the law without bringing in troops.
The judge said there is “no doubt there have been acts of vandalism and assaults” during the ICE crackdown in Chicago, but she could not agree that local law enforcement has been unable to handle the situation, calling the Trump administration’s claims otherwise “unreliable.”
She also noted that federal grand juries have refused to indict a number of protesters who were arrested outside the Broadview ICE facility, casting “significant doubt” on Homeland Security’s credibility and assessment of what’s happening on the streets in the Chicago area.
The judge also said there is overwhelming evidence that deploying troops would lead to civil unrest, and said the provocative nature of ICE agents’ actions, and in some cases constitutional violations, has led to an increase in protest activity already.
Because the National Guard is not trained in law enforcement functions or de-escalation tactics, the judge said allowing troops at the Broadview ICE facility or anywhere else would not be responsible, noting state and local police have indicated they are able to provide protection and keep the peace.
The judge said adding militarized and untrained troops to the situation would not be in the community’s best interest.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul argues in the suit, filed Monday, that “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” He continues, “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard.”
The federal government filed its response with moments to spare, in a 59-page filing that argues President Trump has the legal authority to deploy the troops and that state objections should not block the operation.
Attorneys for the federal government also argued the courts should be “highly deferential” when reviewing a president’s judgment, saying it’s within the scope of the authority the executive branch is given by the Constitution and statutes.
Judge April M. Perry began hearing arguments in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois at 11 a.m. CT.
Perry noted at the start of proceedings that this hearing has taken on new urgency because in the time between the lawsuit being filed Monday and today’s hearing, the government has already deployed 500 National Guard troops to Illinois and Chicago.
The judge initially declined to grant an emergency temporary restraining order in the hours after the lawsuit was filed but warned the federal government they should “take a pause” on deployment amid the legal proceedings.
READ MORE: U.S. District Court chief judge says National Guard not needed at Dirksen Federal Building
Lawyers for the state of Illinois and the federal government gave opening statements before being questioned for hours by Judge Perry. Many of her questions focused on what exactly the National Guard would be authorized to do in their capacity of “protecting” federal property and federal agents.
Judge Perry admitted the open-ended nature of the president’s order is cause for concern.
The federal government’s attorneys argued repeatedly that the president’s judgment in deciding to federalize the National Guard in Illinois is not reviewable by the courts, and declined to articulate clear parameters on the guard’s orders because the situation is fluid. They said orders issued would be tailored to the needs of the moment.
Would they be limited to protecting ICE? The attorney for the government said probably. When Judge Perry asked if the guard might go into neighborhoods, hospitals and schools, the attorney said there is a vetting process but didn’t describe it.
Could they help any federal agency? The government’s attorney answered, “I actually don’t know the answer to that.”
And the big question: Will they be fighting crime in Chicago? “
Certainly to an extent,” the Trump administration’s attorney said. “The mission, again, is a federal protection one.”
The attorneys repeatedly cited violence and “riots” in Illinois, particularly at the Broadview ICE facility, but the judge questioned whether the government was presenting an accurate representation of the violence on the ground, at one point pointing out the gulf between statements made on social media and reporting in Illinois.
We do know 45 members of the Texas National Guard were at the Broadview ICE facility ahead of Thursday’s hearing. In the state’s opening argument, they mentioned internal communications from the person in charge at Broadview said “the situation was under control.”
Perry also asked the government’s lawyers about two temporary restraining orders issued against ICE in the past 48 hours for violations of the First and Fourth amendments — one in a lawsuit in Chicago filed against ICE by reporters and media members, the other filed by an immigration attorney to prevent ICE from searching his phone — which the government said they were not aware of.
Perry questioned the government about its definition of the “danger of rebellion,” and what acts would comprise such a rebellion. At one point, when asking the government about threats made toward ICE and other federal agents, Perry noted, “I agree with you about threats across the U.S. now. Mine started about 10 minutes after I got the case.”
Perry had fewer questions for the state, asking them about their definition of rebellion, the distinction between state and local law enforcement powers and military forces and their objections to using the military to protect federal property. Illinois attorneys argued the power to determine military conditions belongs to Congress, and they do not believe the president can summon troops to places where other law enforcement can be used effectively.
Perry also asked about why they think a temporary restraining order is necessary. Attorneys for Illinois referenced statements made by Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, particularly at the meeting of generals and other military leaders who were called to the Pentagon.
In closing arguments, the state argued the president doesn’t have the authority to send in troops to fight crime, and said the case is full of bad faith and abandonment of public virtues, and presents a “risk of wanton tyranny.”
The federal government argued in return that there is coordinated and complex violence in Illinois, and the president has a right to respond. They argued that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the president’s decision to protect personnel and property.
After closing arguments, Perry adjourned court until 4:30 p.m. CT, at which time she may issue her ruling, though she did not say she will for certain. The exact timing of when a decision will be made is not clear.
CBS News Chicago Legal Analyst Irv Miller said there are three likely possible outcomes for the hearing. First, the judge could tell the government they can’t deploy the National Guard and have to leave. Second, the judge could rule that the president was acting within his power and the guard can stay and do what they wish. Third, she could rule that the guard can stay temporarily, but place major restrictions on their actions and autonomy.
Mr. Trump has claimed that Chicago is “out of control” as justification for sending in the National Guard, and his administration and the Department of Homeland Security have claimed that federal agents and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities need protection from protesters.
The president once again spoke about Chicago Thursday, thanking Texas Governor Greg Abbott for his troops and “doing what has to be done.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson reacted to his latest comments outside court, saying, “We said that this deployment had nothing to do with public safety. We said that this has nothing to do with immigration. This is purely political.”
Troops are also slated to be outside the federal building where this hearing is being held Friday; the judge could also put that on pause. The chief judge at Dirksen Federal Courthouse released a statement this morning disputing government claims that they had asked for National Guard protection, saying troops are not needed.