Illinois Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over National Guard Deployment
The government of Illinois has initiated legal action against President Donald Trump following the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago to suppress protests against immigration raids, reports 24brussels.
The Illinois government petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to challenge the Trump administration’s legal grounds regarding the “federalization and deployment of the U.S. National Guard, any state National Guard, or the deployment of the U.S. Army in Illinois.” The state seeks a permanent injunction against the mobilization of federal forces if it is opposed by the governor.
This troop deployment was announced by the White House under claims of rising “riots” in Chicago and allegations that local authorities have inadequately restored order. Judge April M. Perry is set to review the case, with a hearing scheduled for next Thursday.
In response, Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker asserted on the social network X that “Illinois will not allow the Trump administration to continue its authoritarian march without resistance,” stating that the state will take all necessary measures to halt these actions because “military troops should not be used against American communities.”
This incident forms part of a larger federal strategy that has included military deployments in cities like Washington and Memphis, justified by the Republican president as necessary for addressing crime in urban areas with high rates of violence.
However, civil organizations argue that these actions are primarily aimed at repressing migrants and quelling protests rather than improving public safety. Illinois whistleblowers have criticized the Trump administration for jeopardizing community safety, paralleling a recent case in Portland, Oregon, where a district judge issued a temporary restraining order against deploying the National Guard. Judge Karin Immergut contended that the president appeared to have exceeded constitutional authority and noted that protests in Portland did not present a “danger of rebellion.”
This evolving legal backdrop directly challenges the executive’s authority to deploy military forces in opposition to state policies, further complicating the already tense relationship between the federal government and urban localities. As these cases unfold, the implications for governance and civil rights continue to attract national attention.
