1:25Individuals voice protests during a demonstration against the arrival of the Texas National Guard and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement operatives in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on October 8, 2025. Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, has evolved into the newest hotspot amid a crackdown by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, leading to accusations of rights violations and numerous legal actions. Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images
In two courtrooms situated in different areas of the country, President Donald Trump's endeavor to dispatch armed forces into cities governed by Democrats encountered a crucial judicial examination on Thursday, with a Chicago judge issuing a temporary prohibition against the deployment.
District Judge April Perry issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring the deployment of National Guard members from any U.S. state to Illinois. This edict will remain in force for a duration of 14 days.
The U.S. Justice Department submitted an appeal notice concerning Perry’s judgment late Thursday night.
Concurrently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals conducted an intense, hour-long oral presentation regarding whether to repeal a lower court's directive that obstructed troop deployment into Portland.
The parallel hearings on Thursday established the foundation for a significant legal confrontation since Trump assumed presidency, as local administrations resort to the judiciary to halt what certain judges have characterized as a blurring between military and civilian power.
Chicago
In the adjudication, Perry concluded that "there isn’t any reliable proof to suggest there is a threat of insurgency in Illinois" and there’s no indication that the president is incapable of enforcing U.S. laws through the regular military.
She stated that the national guard’s deployment to Illinois "has the potential to incite civil disruption," which would necessitate a response from state and municipal law enforcement agencies.
Referring to what she denoted as the "incendiary essence of ICE enforcement actions" within Illinois, she commented, "I ascertain that enabling the national guard to deploy will simply intensify the discord they ignited."
Before Judge Perry's ruling, Eric Hamilton, an advocate for the Department of Justice, argued that the Chicago vicinity is confronting "unabashed animosity" directed at federal law enforcement officers, a "deplorable lawlessness" within the city that is demonstrating itself through hostile and aggressive conduct targeting the Department of Homeland Security and ICE associates.
Hamilton cited as instances "agitators" who conveyed weaponry to federal compounds, and those who have launched projectiles, like rocks, bottles, tear gas and fireworks, at federal personnel. These individuals have also obstructed and hampered immigration enforcement by encircling ICE agents and colliding their vehicles with law enforcement’s.
All of these actions, Hamilton claimed, exemplify an "unparalleled" and "flagrant disrespect for law and order" within Illinois.
People shout slogans while protesting the arrival of the Texas National Guard and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during a demonstration in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on October 8, 2025. Chicago, the third-largest in the country, has become the latest flashpoint in a crackdown by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents that has sparked allegations of rights abuses and myriad lawsuits.Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images
Judge Perry extensively interrogated Hamilton regarding the scope of the Guard's deployments and responsibilities, questioning the bounds of their jurisdiction, range, and purpose. Hamilton described a focused assignment to safeguard federal employees and possessions. However, under relentless questioning from Perry, Hamilton hesitated to dismiss a potential augmentation of the mission should circumstances necessitate it.
Describing a "fluid scenario" occurring in and around Chicago, Hamilton articulated, "The reaction will be customized to address whatever present requirements exist."
Hamilton indicated that should the mission evolve, the complainants could petition the court to initiate a renewed challenge.
Wells, the attorney representing Illinois, argued that the situation in situ, specifically beyond the ICE center in Broadview, had considerably de-escalated after the local governance and constabulary implemented limitations on protest periods, and since the Illinois State Police commenced offering security at the facility.
Portland
While the Chicago proceeding was unfolding, a panel comprised of three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals convened to consider arguments about whether to nullify a lower court’s directive that was preventing the deployment of 200 federalized members belonging to the Oregon National Guard into Portland.
On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit implemented an administrative stay concerning that directive to uphold the status quo while the legal proceeding advances through the judicial system.
Oregon posited that the deployment of troops is "part of a national strategy aimed at incorporating the military into civilian law enforcement" and is predicated on "erroneous information" concerning conditions present in Portland.
"Defendants' almost boundless interpretation [of the law] would empower the President with the authority to replicate this endeavor as a reaction to any other customary, nonviolent manifestations of civil disobedience that may occur across our Nation. The public advantage is sustained via a judicial injunction that preserves the tenets of law amidst unprecedented and illegitimate Executive measures, which pose an imminent and irreparable threat to both our State and the Nation," representatives for the state asserted within a recent filing.
On Sunday, a federal judge broadened her injunction to preclude the National Guard from any state from entering Portland after she concluded that the Trump administration was endeavoring to circumvent her temporary restraining order via the utilization of troops hailing from other states.
As of yet, that subsequent injunction has not been officially appealed. However, the wider issue has the potential to surface during the proceedings as the Trump administration challenges judicial boundaries imposed upon the president's authority to deploy the National Guard.
"Congress didn’t impose these constraints on the President's jurisdiction to federalize the Guard, nor did it authorize federal courts to second-guess the President's assessment regarding when and where to mobilize the Guard to strengthen the regular forces when confronting persistent and widespread violent resistance aimed at federal law enforcement," lawyers employed by the Trump administration documented within a filing presented earlier this week.
Within an amicus brief submitted on Thursday, a collective comprising former secretaries belonging to the Army and Navy, retired four-star admirals, and generals, encouraged Judge Perry to express caution regarding the expanded usage of the National Guard in domestic undertakings.
"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.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
