A major legal showdown is unfolding as Illinois and the City of Chicago have filed a lawsuit to stop President Trump’s controversial order deploying National Guard troops to the city. The suit accuses the administration of abusing federal power, violating state sovereignty, and using military forces for political gain.
The complaint, filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Chicago’s legal counsel, targets Trump, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and several federal officials. It argues that the president’s move to federalize the Illinois National Guard and bring in out-of-state troops — including forces from Texas — is unconstitutional and unsupported by any legal justification.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president can only federalize state militias in cases of invasion, rebellion, or obstruction of federal law. The lawsuit claims none of those conditions exist in Illinois and that the deployment therefore violates both the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement — and the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights to self-governance.
In an emergency filing, Illinois and Chicago asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop troop movement immediately, warning that federal forces in Chicago could escalate tensions, undermine public trust, and destabilize local governance.
However, a federal judge declined to grant the immediate injunction, giving the Trump administration until Wednesday night to respond. A full hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, setting the stage for a high-stakes constitutional clash.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that National Guard units from Texas are already preparing to deploy to Illinois, and the Illinois National Guard has received preliminary instructions to mobilize.
Governor J.B. Pritzker condemned the order as a “military-style invasion of an American city,” accusing the White House of trying to manufacture chaos for political theater. He emphasized that local law enforcement remains fully capable of maintaining order without federal intervention.
This lawsuit mirrors similar legal challenges in Oregon and California, where courts have temporarily blocked National Guard deployments under similar claims of federal overreach. Legal experts say these cases could shape the future boundaries of presidential power in domestic military operations.
Supporters of the president argue that the Guard’s deployment is necessary to address rising violence and civil unrest, while critics warn it represents an unprecedented threat to democracy and local autonomy.
As the nation watches closely, the court’s decision this week could determine whether the president has the authority to override state objections and use the military in U.S. cities — a constitutional battle with implications far beyond Chicago.
Watch video below :
