Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

Published

on

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy militia troops in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if the regular U.S. armed forces were unable to quell violence.

The law dating to 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces the threat of an invasion or a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Advertisement

That phrase turned out to be crucial.

Trump’s lawyers assumed it referred to the police and federal agents. But after taking a close look, the justices concluded it referred to the regular U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or the National Guard.

“To call the Guard into active federal service under the [Militia Act], the President must be ‘unable’ with the regular military ‘to execute the laws of the United States,’” the court said in Trump vs. Illinois.

That standard will rarely be met, the court added.

“Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from execut[ing] the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the court said. “So before the President can federalize the Guard … he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be ‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.

Advertisement

“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.

Although the court was acting on an emergency appeal, its decision is a significant defeat for Trump and is not likely to be reversed on appeal. Often, the court issues one-sentence emergency orders. But in this case, the justices wrote a three-page opinion to spell out the law and limit the president’s authority.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees appeals from Illinois, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the deciding votes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome, but said he preferred a narrow and more limited ruling.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

Alito, in dissent, said the “court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.”

Advertisement

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“Today, Americans can breathe a huge sigh of relief,” Bonta said Tuesday. “While this is not necessarily the end of the road, it is a significant, deeply gratifying step in the right direction. We plan to ask the lower courts to reach the same result in our cases — and we are hopeful they will do so quickly.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to Newsom’s control.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

Advertisement

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Sauer told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Advertisement

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the standing U.S. armed forces.

Advertisement

A few days before, Georgetown law professor and former Justice Department lawyer Martin Lederman had filed a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that the “regular forces” cited in the 1903 law were the standing U.S. Army.

His brief prompted the court to ask both sides to explain their view of the disputed provision.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the standing army.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use” of the National Guard, not the standing military, to quell domestic disturbances, they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. Guard members were needed to enforce the law in Chicago.

Advertisement

Politics

Federal judge blocks ICE from arresting immigrants who show up for court appointments in Northern California

Published

on

Federal judge blocks ICE from arresting immigrants who show up for court appointments in Northern California

A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its Justice Department counterpart from “sweeping” civil arrests at immigration courthouses across Northern California, teeing up an appellate challenge to one of the Trump administration’s most controversial deportation tactics.

“This circumstance presents noncitizens in removal proceedings with a Hobson’s choice between two irreparable harms,” Judge P. Casey Pitts wrote in his Christmas Eve decision.

“First, they may appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention,” the judge wrote. “Alternatively, noncitizens may choose not to appear and instead to forego their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal.”

Wednesday’s decision blocks ICE and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review from lying in wait for asylum seekers and other noncitizens at routine hearings throughout the region — a move that would effectively restore pre-Trump prohibition on such arrests.

“Here, ICE and EOIR’s prior policies governing courthouse arrests and detention in holding facilities provide a standard,” the judge said.

Advertisement

Authorities have long curbed arrests at “sensitive locations”— such as hospitals, houses of worship and schools — putting them out of reach of most civil immigration enforcement.

The designation was first established decades ago under ICE’s predecessor agency, Immigration and Naturalization Services. ICE absorbed the prohibitions when the agency was formed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Courts were added to the list under President Obama. The policy prohibiting most courthouse arrests was suspended during the first Trump administration and reinstated by President Biden.

Internal ICE guidance from the Biden era found “[e]xecuting civil immigration enforcement actions in or near a courthouse may chill individuals’ access to courthouses and, as a result, impair the fair administration of justice.”

Nevertheless, the agency’s courthouse policy was reversed again earlier this year, leading to a surge in arrests, and a staggering drop in court appearances, court records show.

Advertisement

Most who do not show up are ordered removed in absentia.

Monthly removal in absentia orders more than doubled this year, to 4,177 from fewer than 1,600 in 2024, justice department data show.

More than 50,000 asylum seekers have been ordered removed after failing to appear in court hearings since January — more than were ordered removed in absentia in the previous five years combined.

“ICE cannot choose to ignore the ‘costs’ of its new policies—chilling the participation of noncitizens in their removal proceedings —and consider only the policies’ purported ‘benefits’ for immigration enforcement,” Pitts wrote in his stay order.

That ruling likely sets the San Francisco case on a collision course with other lawsuits seeking to curb ICE’s incursions into spaces previously considered off-limits. This suit was brought by a group of asylum seekers who braved the risk and were detained when they showed up to court.

Advertisement

One, a 24-year-old Guatemalan asylum seeker named Yulisa Alvarado Ambrocio, was spared detention only because her breastfeeding 11-month-old was with her in court, records show. Administration lawyers told the court ICE would almost certainly pick her up at her next hearing.

Such arrests appear arbitrary and capricious, and are unlikely to survive scrutiny by the courts, Judge Pitts ruled Wednesday.

“That widespread civil arrests at immigration courts could have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at removal proceedings (as common sense, the prior guidance, and the actual experience in immigration court since May 2025 make clear) and thereby undermine this central purpose is thus ‘an important aspect of the problem’ that ICE was required, but failed, to consider,” Pitts wrote.

A district judge in Manhattan ruled the opposite way on a similar case this fall, setting up a possible circuit split and even a Supreme Court challenge to courthouse arrests in 2026.

For now, the Christmas Eve decision only applies to ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, a region encompassing all of Northern and Central California, as far south as Bakersfield.

Advertisement

The geographic limit comes in response to the Supreme Court’s emergency decision earlier this year stripping district judges of the power to block federal policies outside narrowly-tailored circumstances.

The administration told the court it intends to appeal to the 9th Circuit, where Trump-appointed judges have swung the bench far to the right of its longtime liberal reputation.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump lists accomplishments, says ‘Radical Left Scum’ are ‘failing badly’ in Christmas message

Published

on

Trump lists accomplishments, says ‘Radical Left Scum’ are ‘failing badly’ in Christmas message

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump used his Christmas Eve Truth Social post to tout his administration’s accomplishments and to bash those on the left whom he accused of trying to “destroy” the U.S.

“Merry Christmas to all, including the radical left scum that is doing everything possible to destroy our country, but are failing badly,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We no longer have open borders, men in women’s sports, transgender for everyone, or weak law enforcement. What we do have is a record stock market and 401K’s, lowest crime numbers in decades, no inflation, and yesterday, a 4.3 GDP, two points better than expected.”

“Tariffs have given us trillions of dollars in growth and prosperity, and the strongest national security we have ever had. We are respected again, perhaps like never before. God Bless America!!!,” the president added.

In the first year of Trump’s second term, the administration launched a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration, introduced controversial tariffs, worked to cut DEI from government programs and took steps toward fulfilling other campaign promises.

Advertisement

TRUMP TAKES NORAD SANTA CALLS WITH CHILDREN, PRAISES ‘CLEAN, BEAUTIFUL COAL’ AND ‘HIGH IQ’ PERSON

President Donald Trump calls children as he participates in tracking Santa Claus’ movements with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Santa Tracker on Christmas Eve at the Mar-a-Lago resort on Dec. 24, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. This is the 70th year that NORAD has publicly tracked Santa’s sleigh on its global rounds. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that it had arrested 17,500 criminal illegal immigrants since Trump signed the Laken Riley Act in January 2025. In a separate DHS announcement, the department unveiled the “2025 Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens,” saying that 70% of all ICE arrests are of illegal immigrants “convicted or charged with a crime in the U.S.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on the results of the Laken Riley Act that “President Trump has empowered us to arrest and remove the millions of violent criminal illegal aliens unleashed on the United States by the previous administration. Now, these criminals will face justice and be removed from our country.”

Trump’s Christmas Truth Social post on his administration’s accomplishments was also backed up by recent economic data. On Tuesday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its initial estimate of the third-quarter GDP, which showed the economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.3% in the three-month period including July, August and September.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump pumps his fist at Christmas Eve dinner at his Mar-a-Lago club, Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla.  (Alex Brandon/AP Photo)

OPINION: MELANIA TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS IS A SHINING BEACON OF AMERICA

“Compared to the second quarter, the acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter reflected a smaller decrease in investment, an acceleration in consumer spending, and upturns in exports and government spending. Imports decreased less in the third quarter,” the BEA said.

While the president issued a cutting Christmas Eve statement on Truth Social, his official Christmas Day message was softer and more focused on the meaning of the holiday and the season.

In the statement, which was released by the White House on Thursday, Trump and first lady Melania Trump relayed their warm wishes to Americans while emphasizing the religious significance of Christmas.

Advertisement

The Trump administration launched a new website celebrating Christmas and the federal government’s contributions to the U.S. stretching back decades.  (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

MELANIA TRUMP GIVES UPLIFTING MESSAGE ABOUT SANTA TO YOUNG KIDS AT HOSPITAL

“The First Lady and I send our warmest wishes to all Americans as we share in the joy of Christmas Day and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” the message reads.

Trump went on to recount the biblical story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, calling it “the perfect expression of God’s boundless love and His desire to be close to His people.” The president then tied the story to the founding principles of the U.S.

“For nearly 250 years, the principles of faith, family, and freedom have remained at the center of our way of life. As President, I will never waver in defending the fundamental values that make America the greatest country in the history of the world—and we will always remain one Nation under God.”

Advertisement

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump participate in calls to U.S. service members, on Christmas Eve, from the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Dec. 24, 2025. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The president also paid homage to U.S. servicemembers who are overseas and are unable to be with their families for the holiday. Trump thanked them for their service and sacrifice and their dedication to protecting Americans.

“We are grateful for their devotion, and we keep them and their loved ones close in our hearts.”

Trump ended his official message with a prayer for peace in the U.S. and across the globe, extending Christmas wishes to Americans and the world.

Advertisement

“During the Christmas season, we pray for an outpouring of God’s abiding love, divine mercy, and everlasting peace upon our country and the entire world,” he said.. “To every American, and to those celebrating around the globe, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!”

Continue Reading

Politics

The battle for control of Warner Bros.: A timeline of key developments

Published

on

The battle for control of Warner Bros.: A timeline of key developments

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

Netflix and Paramount are locked in an epic tug-of-war for HBO and Warner Bros. — the historic film factory behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “Casablanca” and “The Matrix.”

Warner Bros. Discovery awarded the prize to Netflix, prompting Paramount to mount a hostile takeover bid valued at $108 billion for all of the Warner assets, which also include CNN, TBS, HGTV and TLC. The Larry Ellison-backed media company, run by his son David Ellison, has asked Warner shareholders to sell their shares to Paramount.

Warner Bros.’ sale has become the industry’s game of thrones.

Advertisement

The streaming king, Netflix, hopes to buy a chunk of the company — HBO, HBO Max, Warner Bros. film and TV studios and the 110-acre lot in Burbank — through its $82.7-billion deal. Not included are Warner’s basic cable channels, which are set to be spun off into a separate, publicly-traded company called Discovery Global.

Both deals would fundamentally reorder Hollywood and raise antitrust concerns. Netflix would boast more than 400 million subscribers worldwide, furthering its market dominance. And Paramount’s takeover would combine two major film studios and two leading news organizations, CNN and CBS News, under Ellison family control.

Here’s a look at how we got here:

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending