Trump Sued—Again—for Unlawful and Unconstitutional Deployment of National Guard

This is the second lawsuit in a week challenging the Trump administration's National Guard deployments absent a qualifying emergency.

The state of Illinois and the city of Chicago filed suit against the Trump administration on Monday, arguing that the Defense Department's deployment of both Illinois and Texas National Guard members to Chicago is unlawful and unconstitutional. 

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth federalized 300 members of the Illinois National Guard on Saturday and an additional 400 troops from the state of Texas on Sunday. Both deployments are believed to be going to Chicago and are opposed by Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

"The Trump Administration's Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will," Pritzer wrote in a statement after learning of the Illinois guard deployment, calling the action "outrageous and un-American." "We must now start calling this what it is: [President Donald] Trump's Invasion," Pritzker wrote in response to the Texas National Guard's preparation for deployment to Illinois.

Illinois' complaint closely resembles Oregon's lawsuit filed last week, asserting that the Trump administration's action does not meet the prerequisites necessary—including foreign invasion, domestic rebellion, and inability to execute federal law—to federalize the National Guard, violates the Posse Comitatus Act, and violates the 10th Amendment by "infring[ing] on Illinois's sovereignty and right to self-governance." 

Illinois is also hoping for a similar outcome as Oregon's case. On Saturday, Judge Karin Immergut ruled in favor of the Beaver State, granting a temporary restraining order against the federalization of Oregon National Guard members and holding that plaintiffs were "likely to succeed on their claim that the President's federalization of the Oregon National Guard exceeded his statutory authority" and "that the President exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the Tenth Amendment." "Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates," she continued, "goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States."  

Immergut issued an additional temporary restraining order on Sunday, blocking the federalization of any out-of-state National Guard members from deployment to Oregon. 

Now, plaintiffs argue the same rationale articulated by Immergut should apply to circumstances in Illinois, where Trump has signaled interest in sending troops to "crime ridden" Chicago for weeks, despite Pritzker's insistence that no emergency exists. The animus between Trump and Illinois, Chicago, and its leaders, the complaint points out, has a long history, showing that the decision to deploy troops "was made long before recent events, and Trump's true plan is impermissibly to use federalized national guard as a crime-fighting force." 

Just last week, Trump called Pritzker "incompetent" and "stupid" in a speech in front of hundreds of generals and admirals gathered at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, where he proposed using large Democrat-run American cities—like Chicago—as "training grounds" for the military. 

Immergut's ruling against the deployment of troops provides a check on Trump's authority over Oregon's affairs. Hopefully, the Illinois court will also initiate another strong check on the president's politically motivated power grab. "The brave men and women who serve in our national guards must not be used as political props," Pritzker wrote in a statement. "This is a moment where every American must speak up and help stop this madness."