The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to make a landmark decision on a constitutional issue that forms a significant part of the Trump Administration's stance on illegal immigration.
This decision, expected within a week, is in response to an injunction won by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzkin and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson against President Trump's use of the National Guard and other military forces to curb the riots and violent disorder in Chicago. Similar situations are unfolding in Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California. Although not directly involved in this case, Oregon and California have submitted briefs and will be heavily influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling.
The ongoing conflict between Sanctuary States and cities and Federal enforcement of immigration laws has been likened by some to a burgeoning civil war. These states and cities have been actively obstructing the enforcement of immigration laws, as reported by Rep. Brad Knotts (R-NC) in his piece, Democrats Attacking Federal Law Enforcement Have Become the New Confederacy, published on Breitbart on November 8, 2025.
According to Gateway Pundit, Christina Laila reported on November 10, 2025, that the leadership of the Latin Kings had issued a 'shoot on sight' order against Border Patrol Agents involved in Chicago's 'Operation Midway Blitz.'
While the Federal Government cannot compel States to implement Federal policies, States are equally prohibited from interfering with Federal functions. This principle has been upheld in previous cases such as New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); United States v. Arizona, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). However, the newly elected Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, appears determined to challenge this principle.
The American Rights Alliance (ARA) has warned that misinformation spread by Democrat party officials and activists is fueling real violence. The ARA has urged the Supreme Court to not only make a clear ruling but also to explain its decision to dispel any misconceptions.
The ARA brief also counters the claim made in all the anti-deportation briefs that the National Guard or U.S. Military has never been used to protect Federal property before. The brief cites historical precedents, including the use of the 101st Airborne Division to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, following the Supreme Court's order in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873.
The National Guard was also mobilized during the Detroit Riots in 1967, the multi-city Riots in 1968 following the assassination of Martin Luther King, and the New York Postal Strike in 1970.
The crux of the case is whether the National Guard can be deployed to protect Federal personnel, assets, and function. The ARA and the Trump briefs argue that this is not general law enforcement, citing a memorandum issued by William Rehnquist, later Chief Justice, while he was Assistant Attorney General.
The memorandum states that the Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the use of troops to protect the functioning of the government and that troops may be used to prevent traffic obstructions designed to prevent the access of employees to their agencies.
The ARA brief also emphasizes that President Trump has not asked the National Guard to perform general law enforcement duties. Their mission is to protect civilian law enforcement agents and assist them in their work.
The ARA's brief is the only one in the case that clearly distinguishes between situations where State or local officials are unwilling to enforce the law and those where they are unable to maintain law and order. The brief argues that Sanctuary City jurisdictions are defying Federal law and refusing to allow the deportation of illegal aliens. Lawyers close to the case believe this constitutes rebellion or insurrection and justifies the use of the military where otherwise civilian law enforcement would be sufficient.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court in Chicago in Record No. 25-2798. The Trump Administration filed an Application for a Stay on October 17, 2025. Justice Amy Comey Barrett ordered responses on a very tight turn-around October 20, 2025. On October 29, 2025, the Court took an unusual step of ordering additional briefing due on Monday, November 10, 2025.
Legal experts close to the case believe that the highly specific question posed by the Court suggests that they have already thoroughly considered the case and are close to a decision. Given the additional 11 days provided to the Law Clerks and Justices to read all the briefs, it is expected that the Court could rule on this emergency petition within approximately two weeks.
Login