WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed the Trump administration over its plan to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois over the strenuous objections of local officials.

The court in an unsigned order turned away an emergency request made by the administration, which said the troops are needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area.

Although the decision is a preliminary one involving only Chicago, it will likely bolster similar challenges made to National Guard deployments in other cities, with the opinion setting significant new limits on the president’s ability to do so.

The decision marked a rare defeat for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, after the administration secured a series of high-profile wins this year.

In doing so, the court at least provisionally rejected the Trump administration’s view that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations.

Those circumstances can include when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The court ruled against the administration on a threshold question, finding that the law’s reference to the “regular forces” only allows for the National Guard to be called up if regular military forces are unable to restore order.

The court order said that Trump could only call up the military where they could “legally execute the laws” and that power is limited under another law called the Posse Comitatus Act.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.

As a result, the Trump administration has failed to show that the National Guard law “permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois,” the court added.

The decision saw the court’s six conservative justices split, with three in the majority and three in dissent. The court’s three liberals were in the majority.

The dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views. And I strongly disagree with the manner in which the court has disposed of this application,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“There is no basis for rejecting the President’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,” he added.

Trump’s unusual move to deploy the National Guard, characteristic of his aggressive and unprecedented use of executive power, was based on his administration’s stated assessment that the Chicago area was descending into lawless chaos.

That view of protests against surging immigration enforcement actions in Chicago is rejected by local officials as well as judges who have ruled against the administration.

The deployment was challenged in court by the Democratic-led state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, with their lawyers saying Trump had an ulterior motive for the deployment: to punish his political opponents.

They argued in court papers that Trump’s invocation of the federal law was not justified and that his actions also violated the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which places limits on federal power, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from conducting law enforcement duties.

U.S. District Judge April Perry said she “found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion” and issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the state.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reached the same conclusion, saying “the facts do not justify the president’s actions.”

The court did narrow Perry’s order, saying that Trump could federalize the troops, but could not deploy them.

The Supreme Court has frequently ruled in Trump’s favor in recent months as the administration has rushed to the justices when policies are blocked by lower courts.

Trump’s efforts to impose federal control over cities led by Democrats who vociferously oppose his presidency are not just limited to Chicago. He has also sought to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.

Most recently, hundreds of National Guard troops deployed in Illinois and Oregon were set to return to their home states.

The deployment in the District of Columbia, which is a federal enclave with less local control, has been challenged in court, but there has been no ruling yet.

A federal appeals court allowed the Los Angeles deployment, and a different panel of judges on Oct. 20 ruled similarly in relation to Portland.

INDIANAPOLIS (WNDU) – Indiana tourism surged past pre-pandemic levels in 2024, according to a new report released by Gov. Mike Braun.

The report shows 83 million visitors traveled to Indiana in 2024, a 1.9% increase from 2023. Visitor spending increased 4.7% from the previous year, totaling $16.9 billion and fully recovering to pre-pandemic levels.

Visitors spent an average of $203 each during their stays. For every dollar spent by visitors, 65 cents stayed in Indiana, according to the report.

“Our state’s record tourism year is great news for Hoosiers and proof of just how much there is to love about visiting Indiana,” Braun said. “Tourism means jobs, stronger Main Streets, and economic growth. These results show that our investments are yielding returns for our economy and showing what makes Indiana a great place to live, work, play and stay.”

To view the full Rockport Analytics report, click here.

Copyright 2025 WNDU. All rights reserved.

• The Iowa Supreme Court overturned the sexual abuse conviction of a West Des Moines doctor.
• The court ruled that allowing the child victim to testify via one-way video violated the Iowa Constitution.
• This decision is one of several that has set Iowa apart from other states on the issue of remote testimony.

The Iowa Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a West Des Moines doctor found guilty of sexually abusing a child, ruling that allowing the victim to testify via one-way video violated the Iowa Constitution.

The court on Tuesday, Dec. 23, reversed the conviction of Lynn Melvin Lindaman, a longtime central Iowa surgeon who practiced at the Lindaman Orthopaedics clinic in West Des Moines before he was charged in 2023 with second-degree sexual abuse. The case was remanded for a new trial.

The decision is the latest in a string of rulings that have set Iowa apart as the only state in the country whose highest court has barred one-way video testimony in criminal trials, even in cases involving child victims. 

Those decisions already have begun reshaping prosecutions across the state and have prompted lawmakers to launch the process of amending the Iowa Constitution. The change would ultimately require voter approval.

Lindaman, now 75, was convicted after a jury trial in Polk County. Prosecutors alleged that on June 26, 2023, he committed a sex act in Ankeny against a child under the age of 10. A second count of sexual abuse was dismissed prior to trial. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison, with a mandatory minimum of 42½ years because of a prior sexual predatory offense in 1976. He also faced a separate and now-dismissed civil lawsuit from an Iowa woman who claimed he sexually assaulted her in 1975.

The Iowa Offender Search still lists Lindaman as in custody of the Iowa Medical & Classification Center.

On appeal, Lindaman argued that his constitutional rights were violated when the district court allowed the child to testify from another room via one-way closed-circuit television, rather than from the witness stand in the courtroom.

“Today’s decision from the Iowa Supreme Court is an important win for Lynn Lindaman and a major step toward a fair result,” said Lucas Taylor, the attorney representing Lindaman. “Although the court did not rule in our favor on every issue, this ruling recognizes serious errors in the prior proceedings and gives Mr. Lindaman the chance to present his defense to a new jury.”

In a 4-3 ruling issued earlier this year in State v. White, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed with that argument, holding that one-way video testimony violates the confrontation clause of the Iowa Constitution. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice David May said that “when the accused and the witness are prevented from seeing each other, there is no face-to-face confrontation, and the Iowa Constitution is not satisfied.”

The ruling came despite U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing such testimony and laws in many other states permitting it. Under the Iowa statute the court overturned, judges had been allowed to authorize remote testimony by minors, or witnesses with mental illnesses or disabilities, if a judge found that “trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant … would impair the minor’s ability to communicate.”

The White decision arose from an Osceola County case, but its effects have since spread and courts across Iowa have begun hearing challenges from defendants convicted in cases where one-way video testimony was used.