Supreme Court issues unsigned order preserving lower‑court injunction On December 23, 2025 the Court denied the administration’s request to overturn U.S. District Judge April Perry’s order, leaving the injunction that bars hundreds of National Guard troops from entering Chicago in place [1][2]. The decision was rendered without a written opinion, resulting in a 6‑3 split with Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissenting [2]. The justices’ vote signals a rare departure from recent conservative‑leaning rulings favoring the administration.

Lower court found no rebellion justification for federal Guard deployment Judge Perry’s injunction rested on the finding that recent protests in the Chicago area did not constitute a rebellion or imminent danger of rebellion, a prerequisite for federalizing the Guard [1][2]. The ruling emphasized that the National Guard is traditionally state‑controlled and deployed for disasters or large‑scale civil disturbances, not unilateral federal actions [2]. This legal standard limits the president’s authority to mobilize the Guard except under extraordinary circumstances.

Illinois Governor praises decision as defense of democratic authority Governor JB Pritzker called the ruling “a big win for Illinois and American democracy,” framing it as a check on federal overreach into local security matters [1][2]. The White House has not issued an immediate comment, indicating the administration is weighing further legal options [2]. Illinois officials view the outcome as a reinforcement of state sovereignty over security decisions.

Deployment plan part of broader Trump strategy targeting Democratic cities The Chicago request was one element of a wider effort by the Trump administration to deploy National Guard units to protest‑prone, Democratic‑led municipalities, mirroring proposals for other major cities [1][2]. Similar legal challenges have arisen in Oregon, Memphis, and Los Angeles, where courts have also blocked or questioned Guard deployments [1]. These cases reflect an ongoing national debate over the appropriate use of federal troops in domestic law‑enforcement contexts.

Future litigation remains open as the Court signals possible latitude Justice Kavanaugh hinted that future cases might grant the executive more flexibility in exceptional scenarios, suggesting the current block is not a final resolution [1]. The injunction remains temporary, and the administration could pursue appeals or new arguments [1]. A multi‑state challenge led by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, with 45 states supporting, continues to contest federal Guard deployments nationwide [1].