Judge temporarily blocks National Guard deployment in Illinois amid Chicago, Portland hearings

The ruling will be in effect for 14 days.

By Peter Charalambous, Devin Dwyer, and James Hill

October 9, 2025, 4:45 PM

In two courthouses in different parts of the country, President Donald Trump's attempt to send troops into Democratic-led cities faced a critical legal test on Thursday, with a judge in Chicago temporarily blocking deployment.

District Judge April Perry entered a TRO enjoining the deployment of National Guard troops from any U.S. state into Illinois. This ruling will be in effect for 14 days.

Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a heated, hour-long oral argument on whether to lift a lower court's order blocking the deployment of troops into Portland.

The dueling hearings on Thursday set the stage for one of the most high-profile legal battles since Trump took office, as local governments turn to the courts to stop what some judges have described as a blurring of the line between military and civilian rule.

Trump threatens use of Insurrection Act in Chicago as governor says feds used Black Hawk helicopters in immigration raid

Chicago

Before Judge Perry's decision, Christopher Wells, an attorney for Illinois, took aim at the Trump administration's claims that the state and city had descended into rebellion.

"The President of the United States believes there is a rebellion?" Wells asked.  "And they claim the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States with the regular forces."

Wells called that "an audacious claim" and argued that the Trump administration was overstating the amount of violence directed at federal agents and property and ignoring the conditions on the ground.

"Where is the rebellion? Who are the rebels? Are the rebels well armed?" he asked.  "There is no rebellion in Illinois."

A lawyer for the Department of Justice, Eric Hamilton, countered that the Chicago area is experiencing "brazen hostility" to federal law enforcement officers, a "tragic lawlessness" in the city that is manifesting in hostile and violent acts against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE personnel.

Hamilton listed as examples "agitators" that had brought guns to federal facilities, and who have thrown rocks, bottles, tear gas and fireworks at federal agents, and who have blocked and impeded immigration enforcement, including by surrounding ICE agents and ramming their vehicles into law enforcement vehicles.

All of which has shown, Hamilton argued, that in Illinois there is an "unprecedented" and "blatant disregard for law and order."

There doesn't, in fact, have to be a rebellion, Hamilton argued. The danger of a rebellion occurring is sufficient for the president to make a determination that federalization and mobilization of the guard is warranted.

Judge Perry questioned Hamilton extensively over the scope of the Guard's deployments and responsibilities and asked what the limits were to their authority, scope and mission. Hamilton described a limited mission to protect federal personnel and property but, under repeated questioning from Perry, Hamilton declined to rule out an expansion of the mission if events were to warrant it.

Describing a "dynamic situation" on the ground in and around Chicago, Hamilton said, "the response is going to be tailored to whatever the needs are" at the moment.  

If the mission changes, Hamilton said, the plaintiffs would be able to return to court to issue a renewed challenge.

Wells, the attorney for Illinois, contended that the situation on the ground, particularly outside the ICE facility in Broadview, had calmed substantially since the local government and police force had instituted restrictions on protest hours and since the Illinois State Police began providing protection at the facility.

Portland

As the Chicago hearing took place, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments about whether to lift a lower court's order blocking the deployment of 200 federalized members of the Oregon National Guard into Portland.

On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay of that order to preserve the status quo as the lawsuit moves through the court.

Oregon argued that the deployment of troops is "part of a nationwide campaign to assimilate the military into civilian law enforcement" and is based on "inaccurate information" about the conditions in Portland.

"Defendants' nearly limitless conception [of the law] would give the President discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary, nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our Nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful Executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our State and the Nation," lawyers for the state said in a recent filing.

A federal judge on Sunday expanded her order to bar any state's National Guard from entering Portland after concluding that the Trump administration was attempting to work around her temporary restraining order by using troops from other states.

Judge to block 'relocation, federalization, or deployment' of any National Guard to Oregon

That second order has not been formally appealed yet, although the broader issue may arise during the hearing as the Trump administration challenges judicial limits on the president's authority to deploy the National Guard.

"Congress did not impose these limits on the President's authority to federalize the Guard, nor did it authorize the federal courts to second-guess the President's judgment about when and where to call up the Guard to reinforce the regular forces in response to sustained and widespread violent resistance to federal law enforcement," lawyers for the Trump administration wrote in a filing earlier this week.

In an amicus brief filed on Thursday, a group of former secretaries of the Army and Navy, retired four-star admirals and generals, encouraged Judge Perry to express caution about the broader use of the National Guard in domestic operations.

"Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to [the Posse Comitatus Act] threaten the Guard's core national security and disaster relief missions; place deployed personnel in fraught situations for which they lack specific training, thus posing safety concerns for servicemembers and the public alike; and risk inappropriately politicizing the military, creating additional risks to recruitment, retention, morale, and cohesion of the force," lawyers for the former military leaders wrote.