- Illinois and Oregon have sued the Trump administration to block National Guard deployment.
- Chicago residents allegedly tried to halt ICE operations with a car blockade on Saturday.
- Utah's former National Guard general said Trump's actions fall under legal authorities.
Texas National Guard soldiers headed to Chicago on Monday as Illinois joined Oregon and California in challenging the Trump administration for federalizing state militias to protect immigration agents.
The Democratic-led states filed a litany of lawsuits against the White House over the weekend, alleging that President Donald Trump had taken unprecedented steps to exert military authority against U.S. civilians.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said on Monday that federal officials had not coordinated with him before launching what the Democratic governor called the “unconstitutional invasion of Illinois by the federal government.”
Hours earlier, the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, announced an executive order that would establish “ICE-free zones,” prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement from operating on city-owned property.
In a post on X, Utah Sen. Mike Lee questioned whether Johnson had ever read the “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal statute the “supreme law of the land,” overriding state or local policies.
Johnson’s order came after Chicago residents appeared to violently interfere with federal operations on Saturday when ICE officials were “boxed in” by vehicles and a crowd, resulting in several arrests and the shooting of one woman.
In an emergency hearing held on Monday, a federal judge did not immediately block National Guardsmen from entering the city, postponing a hearing on the issue until Thursday, according to the New York Times.
Did Trump act constitutionally?
Trump has characterized blue-state opposition to federal operations as an effort to shelter dangerous criminals. Critics, including a Trump-appointed judge, argue that the National Guard deployment exceeds constitutional limits.
The former head of the Utah National Guard, Maj. Gen. (ret.) Jefferson Burton, told the Deseret News that Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard falls under Title 10 authorities, permitting him to make the National Guard part of federal forces during national emergencies.
“It’s not breaking statutes currently in place, but it does test the norms to some degree because in most cases presidents don’t do this without a governor requesting those troops,” Burton said. “And so I’m not surprised that courts are saying, ‘Wait, slow down.’”
Burton, who also serves as a state lawmaker from Salem, said the administration’s legal confrontation represents a fundamental disagreement on a “sensitives states’ rights issue” about the National Guard’s role in helping enforce federal initiatives.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has previously been outspoken about federal overreach related to National Guard units. In August, Cox said he supported the Utah National Guard aiding ICE as long as it did not include participating in arrests.
Trump’s June 7 order to federalize National Guard troops, even against a state’s wishes, is “unprecedented,” said ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi in response to a question from the Deseret News.
The statutes Trump invoked only apply during true emergencies as determined in “good faith and honest judgement” — and the situations in Portland and Chicago do not meet that threshold, according to Shamsi.
“In Portland, and I would say it’s the same elsewhere, there is no ‘good faith-honest judgment’ basis for deploying federalized National Guard troops over the objections of governors,” Shamsi said.
On Sept. 29, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers to be deployed to Portland to protect federal immigration facilities, where protests had consistently taken place since June.
On Saturday, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, put the move on hold, ruling that the troops were not needed to enforce laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.
Immergut expanded her original restraining order during an emergency hearing on Sunday to include the National Guard of any state sent to Oregon after the Trump administration attempted to deploy troops from California and Texas.
Can the National Guard fight city crime?
The lawsuit did not directly impact Trump’s order sending the National Guard to Chicago, where the president has promised to quell persistent gang violence, in addition to providing protection for federal immigration agents.
Those who claim Trump’s efforts are tantamount to turning the U.S. military against Americans are escalating an already tense political moment, according to Rafael Mangual, a senior fellow in criminal justice policy at the Manhattan Institute.
“It’s irresponsible to ratchet up the rhetoric to suggest that this is some kind of attack on American citizens within these cities,” Mangual said.
It is clear from the multiple assaults on ICE officers in recent weeks that “they need help,” according to Mangual. But it is essential to distinguish between the two different justifications for deploying the guard.
While the National Guard is not prepared to fulfill local law enforcement duties, it is equipped to support ICE agents during protests and to maintain order around facilities — especially where there is a perceived lack of help from local law enforcement, Mangual said.
It is unclear whether efforts to decrease crime using the National Guard in Washington, D.C., have been effective, Mangual said. And if Trump tried to use troops outside of the capital to fight local crime then it would create legal uncertainties about the National Guard’s jurisdiction.
“What I would like to see is a world in which ... Portland and Chicago come to realize the error of their ways, come to understand that they do have a serious crime and disorder problem, and authorize their police to do the things that those police have trained to do,” Mangual said.