Trump May Send MARINES to Protect ICE in Chicago
After SCOTUS blocks the National Guard’s deployment…
This article originally appeared on m o d e r n i t y and was republished with permission.
Guest post by @ModernityNews
In a stunning twist that exposes the left’s short-sighted obstructionism, the Supreme Court has upheld a lower court block on President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. But as legal experts point out, this ruling could backfire spectacularly, paving the way for Trump to unleash the full might of the U.S. military—Marines or Airborne divisions—to protect federal agents and enforce immigration laws in Democrat-run strongholds.
The decision hands Trump a powerful tool to bypass blue-state resistance, turning what liberals hailed as a victory into a potential rout for sanctuary policies that have turned cities like Chicago into magnets for illegal activity.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 unsigned order, denied the Trump administration’s request to lift a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry. This blocks the federalization of 300 Illinois National Guard troops under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to call up the Guard when unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”
Illinois Democrats, led by Governor J.B. Pritzker, sued to halt the deployment, claiming it infringed on state rights. Lower courts agreed, finding no evidence of rebellion or insurmountable barriers to federal law enforcement despite ongoing attacks on ICE facilities—over 30 federal officers injured, vehicles rammed, and buildings besieged in what critics call coordinated assaults on U.S. sovereignty.
The high court ruled that the government “has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.” They interpreted “regular forces” as the U.S. military itself, not just civilian agencies like ICE.
Dissenting justices, including Samuel Alito (joined by Clarence Thomas), blasted the majority for ignoring threats to federal officers: “[w]hatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito urged.
In a Fox News segment breaking down the ruling, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo laid out the ironic consequences for Democrats who pushed this case to SCOTUS.
“The unintended consequence here might be POTUS has to call the 82nd Airborne, or the Marines, or the 101st Airborne Division, like President Eisenhower did after Brown v Board,” Yoo explained.
He added: “Trump might have to do that first to protect federal buildings and ICE agents. THEN, if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard.”
Yoo’s take underscores how the ruling doesn’t strip Trump’s authority—it escalates it. The President could invoke the Insurrection Act or Article II powers to deploy active-duty troops directly, sidestepping the Guard entirely. This mirrors Eisenhower’s 1957 move to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, against defiant state officials.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in briefs that while Trump opted for the Guard to show restraint, he retains full authority to use the military: “although Trump could have deployed the U.S. military… his decision to send the National Guard instead was entitled to ‘extraordinary deference.’”
Trump’s push stems from escalating violence in Chicago, a self-declared sanctuary city where local officials have openly defied federal immigration enforcement. Protests have turned violent, with federal buildings under siege and ICE operations hampered—hallmarks of the open-borders policies that flourished under the previous administration.
The President announced the Guard deployment in early October 2025 to assist in mass deportations and crime suppression, similar to actions in D.C. and Los Angeles. But Illinois’ lawsuit, backed by left-leaning groups, framed it as an “abuse of power.”
Governor Pritzker crowed: “Today is a big win for Illinois and American Democracy… this is an important step in curbing the Trump administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trumps march toward authoritarianism.”
Such rhetoric rings hollow when sanctuary policies enable cartels and drain taxpayer resources. The ruling echoes blocks in Portland and Oregon, where judges deemed protests “predominantly peaceful” despite evidence of anarchy. Yet, as Yoo noted, governors might soon regret inviting “82nd Airborne Marine Corps patrolling the streets” over Guard units.
Trump’s team has signaled they’ll appeal on the merits, but the path to regular forces remains wide open.
The decision spotlights the deep state’s judicial roadblocks to America First agendas. By forcing Trump’s hand toward heavier military options, it could accelerate deportations nationwide, dismantling sanctuary havens that prioritize illegals over citizens.
While leftist critics are screeching about a “military takeover,” they are ignoring how Posse Comitatus Act exceptions apply when states sabotage federal law. This ruling doesn’t weaken executive power—it refines it, ensuring threats to sovereignty face swift, decisive action.
The Democrats’ victory lap may turn into a sprint from the consequences. President Trump now has clearer grounds to deploy the Marines, turning Chicago’s chaos into a showcase for reclaiming American streets.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Copyright 2025 m o d e r n i t y
Fascinating legal pivot here. The irony is thatblocking National Guard deployment might actually give the administration broader latitude under Article II powers. John Yoo's historical parallel to Eisenhower and Little Rock is particularly relevant since that established clear precedent for federal force when state governments actively obstruct federal law. The whole "regular forces" interpretation could be what turns Chicago into the test case everyone's been avoiding.
Clown world.
Imagine a president not being able to help enforce law enforcement.
Imagine a state that cares more about opposing a president from another political party than protecting its citizens.