Supreme Court rules against Trump on deploying troops to Chicago

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump overstepped his powers in trying to federalize and send the National Guard to Chicago.

The decision marks a significant reversal for Mr. Trump. It could undercut his other deployments, including the troops stationed in Los Angeles for six months, in response to violence against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

In an unsigned opinion, the high court said the law governing the president’s powers to deploy National Guard troops can be triggered only when the existing military forces aren’t sufficient, and because the military has no legally discernible role in quelling the protests in Chicago or assisting in protecting federal buildings there, Mr. Trump has no cause to call out the Guard.

“Thus, at least in this posture, the Government has not carried its burden to show that [the law] permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the court said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch noted their dissent. They said the majority introduced legal issues that weren’t raised in the lower courts.

They urged caution in second-guessing Mr. Trump’s decision-making in a matter of public safety and security.

“Whatever 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,” Justice Alito wrote.

Courts across the nation had been awaiting the justices’ action. Troop deployments in Oregon, Illinois and California were potentially resting on the decision.

The troops were allowed to deploy to Los Angeles, where several hundred remain, but they were blocked from deploying to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago while the justices deliberated.

In each place, the protests against ICE grew unruly, and the Trump administration responded in force.

In Chicago, clashes led to a judicial ruling that the administration’s tactics to suppress the demonstrations were too harsh.

Democrats said they hoped the decision was an indication that the Supreme Court would reject what they considered authoritarian tendencies in the president.

“It’s long past time for the Trump Administration to back off Chicago. The majority of Americans believe they’ve gone too far, and even the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority refused to greenlight this blatantly unlawful overreach,” said Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, the two Democratic senators from Illinois.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for turning to the military to handle problems dates back to his first term.

In this instance, he was acting under a law that allows the president to federalize and deploy National Guard troops in cases of invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government or when “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

After an initial round of briefing at the high court, the justices asked both sides to elaborate on the meaning of “regular forces” and whether that term referred explicitly to military or civilian law enforcement.

Illinois argued that it meant the regular military. The state suggested that Mr. Trump would need to deploy active-duty troops first, and only if they were unable to manage the situation could he turn to the National Guard. Illinois also said the Posse Comitatus Act would limit his authority to deploy those active-duty troops.

The administration said National Guard troops are “better suited” than active-duty troops to deploy to cities, implying that the law was intended to include civilian law enforcement as part of the regular forces.

The high court majority sided with Illinois.

“Because the statute requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional,” the court said.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the president from deploying the military domestically to execute the law. If the regular military can’t be used, the Guard can’t be called in as a substitute, the court said.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh sided with the majority in ruling against Mr. Trump but for different reasons.

He said he was troubled by the idea that the president can’t deploy the Guard at all unless he first uses the regular military.

Justice Kavanaugh said that could result in situations where a mob attacks a location, such as a federal courthouse, and no regular military forces are ready to deploy. Under the majority’s framework, he said, Mr. Trump would be unable to activate the Guard.

He said Mr. Trump also has separate powers to deploy troops under the Insurrection Act and his own powers explicitly granted by the Constitution, so the ruling creates a perverse incentive for a chief executive to turn to active-duty troops for domestic matters.

“One apparent ramification of the court’s opinion is that it could cause the president to use the U.S. military more than the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in the United States,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.

He said in this case, Mr. Trump didn’t prove that the regular civilian law enforcement was insufficient to maintain order.

That essentially aligns with federal district courts, which examined the situation in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago and found that, although some violence flared, federal, state and local authorities on the whole were able to contain the situation.

The ruling marks a stark reversal of fortune for Mr. Trump, who had been on a winning streak before the justices with rulings allowing him to carry out firings of major federal officers, to flex broad deportation powers for illegal immigrants and to withhold some government spending.

The justices have other Trump cases pending, including one on his expansive claims of power to use tariffs and another looking at his move to stop government recognition of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visitors.

The case Tuesday was on the justices’ emergency docket, meaning it was decided without full briefing and oral argument, and the decision is preliminary.

For all that, it is likely to affect the Portland and Los Angeles cases as well because the president used the same section of law and relied on the same definition of “regular forces.”

It is less likely to interfere with Mr. Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to the District of Columbia, which is subject to direct federal control and where the law gives the president specific powers to call up troops.