The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene after a lower court blocked President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois, effectively tying the administration’s hands as federal officers face growing hostility.
The decision drew sharp criticism from conservatives, particularly after Justice Samuel Alito issued a forceful dissent warning that the judiciary is increasingly inserting itself into core executive responsibilities. Alito made clear that courts are obstructing the Trump administration’s ability to protect federal personnel:
Many conservatives were outraged, complaining that since the advent of President Trump 2.0, judges at all levels have been doing everything in their power to kneecap his agenda. The Supreme Court has issued some favorable decisions along the way — but not this time.
One person who was not amused was a Supreme Court justice himself: Justice Samuel Alito, and his dissent on the case doesn’t mince words about his displeasure with what he sees as “unwise” and “imprudent” determinations made by the 6-3 majority. In addition, Alito — not one known to hold back on his opinions — thought it improperly took power from the executive branch:
The majority also did not give enough deference to Trump after the president found that agitators were hindering immigration officers and other federal personnel from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the National Guard needed to step in to help.
“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,” Alito wrote.
That said, left-wing Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker took a victory lap:
…Pritzker applauded the court’s decision in a statement, saying, “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”
But, as one observer noted, Pritzker’s happy dance – some cardio he likely needed – is likely way premature because the Supreme Court hasn’t issued a final ruling on this yet:
The Court emphasized that it was not issuing a final decision on whether or not the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard. It focuses on the emergency request before the Court while side-stepping the overall issue, which is not out of line with other recent rulings.
The Court made clear in its decision that it is not addressing the underlying constitutional questions, nor is it making a determination as to whether or not Trump’s orders were lawful. It also, notably, does not prevent future deployments.
Considering that, John Yoo, a lawyer and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush era, offered a potentially different view on this Supreme Court ruling. Yoo was a guest on Fox News’ America Reports, where he speculated that the ruling might not convey the same implications that Pritzker and others believe it does:
But the statute says, the President has to be unable to enforce the law with regular forces. What does regular forces mean? We don’t know, the Supreme Court has never decided this question before yesterday. The Supreme Court now says, regular forces means you have to try with the regular armed forces first before you bring out the National Guard.
Yikes. Yoo then elaborated further:
So, the unintended consequence here might be that the president is going to have to call the 82nd Airborne, or the Marines, or the 101st Airborne Division as for example President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education in the South to enforce desegregation. President Trump might have to do that first in order to protect those federal buildings, those ICE agents. And then if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard.
? LMAO! The Democrat lawfare against President Trump may now BACKFIRE, resulting in MARINES being sent into Chicago instead of National Guard
SCOTUS said “regular forces” must be used before the Guard
MARINES are “regular forces”
JB Pritzker messed up?pic.twitter.com/jflO8dAauM
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 24, 2025
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not address the core issues, meaning this isn’t the conclusive opinion on the matter, especially considering Alito’s dissent mentioned earlier, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring view. In fact, Yoo believes that the Supreme Court might be providing President Trump with an opening to do what he wants:
Second, and I think, more worrisome, the Supreme Court is essentially inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops and deploy those to Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send the National Guard. I think a governor would rather have National Guard troops than the 82nd Airborne and the Marine Corps patrolling the streets of Chicago.
One could reasonably draw that conclusion, but Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker appears far more focused on burnishing his national profile than restoring order. As Chicago continues to struggle with violent crime and unrest tied to ICE protests, Pritzker has shown little urgency in protecting residents—yet seems eager to seize any confrontation with the Trump administration to advance his own political ambitions.
From that perspective, Pritzker may welcome a broader federal response, not because it would help Illinois, but because it would allow him to amplify his rhetoric about “abuse of power” and “authoritarianism.” Such framing fits neatly into the narrative Democrats are building ahead of the next presidential cycle.
While President Donald Trump may well be acting within his constitutional authority, there is no obligation to hand political opportunists additional ammunition. Escalation that serves little practical purpose would only feed Pritzker’s propaganda machine and bolster what many see as an early-stage 2028 presidential bid.
