Appeals court declines to lift order blocking Trump from deploying National Guard in Illinois, finding scant evidence of 'rebellion'
A federal appeals court panel has denied a request from the Trump administration to lift a lower court's order blocking the president from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois.
The three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said the Trump administration's decision to deploy National Guard troops was a "likely violation" of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states.
It also found that the Trump administration was "unlikely to succeed" in proving that there is a "rebellion" against the authority of the U.S. government or that the president is unable to execute the law with regular forces.
The panel's decision maintains the status quo in Illinois.
Over the weekend, the appeals court allowed the federal government to maintain control of Guard troops but continued a block on the Trump administration -- imposed by a lower court judge -- from deploying federalized Guardsmen anywhere within Illinois.
The temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of the Guard remains in effect through Oct. 23. U.S. District Judge April Perry has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 22 to determine whether to extend the temporary order.
As of last week, there were about 200 federalized National Guard troops from Texas and 14 from California currently in Illinois, according to a declaration from a U.S. Army official. Another 300 Guardsmen from Illinois have been mobilized by the president over the objections of Gov. JB Pritzker.
President Donald Trump has said Guard troops are needed for crime prevention in Chicago, which he has described as a "war zone."
In addition, the Trump administration has said troops are needed to protect federal immigration facilities, which have been the site of clashes between protesters and federal immigration agents as the administration carries out its stepped-up immigration enforcement.
The appeals court panel said there was scant evidence the protests in Chicago amounted to a rebellion.
"Political opposition is not rebellion," the judges wrote in their decision.
“[W]e see insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois," the judges wrote later in their decision. "The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority."
Likewise, the judges said there was "insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws."
While an immigration facility in the Broadview suburb of Chicago has been the site of regular protests, it has remained open and the protests "have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities," the judges wrote in the decision.
"At the same time, immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace in Illinois over the past year, and the administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area," the judges wrote. "The administration accordingly is also unlikely to succeed on this argument."
