Politics
Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago
WASHINGTON — 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.”
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.
“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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Politics
Video: ‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
new video loaded: ‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
transcript
transcript
‘He Was Disappointed’: NATO’s Chief on Recent Trump Meeting
Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, described a recent meeting he had with President Donald Trump, saying that Trump had expressed frustration with NATO allies for not helping enough with the war in Iran
-
He was disappointed yesterday, but he also had a very frank and open discussion amongst friends. I sensed his disappointment about the fact that he felt that too many allies were not with him. When it came time to provide the logistical and other support the United States needed in Iran, some allies were a bit slow, to say the least. But what I see when I look across Europe today is allies providing a massive amount of support, basing, logistics and other measures to ensure the powerful U.S. military succeeds in denying Iran a nuclear weapon. NATO is there, of course, to protect the Europeans but also to protect the United States.
By Meg Felling
April 9, 2026
Politics
Unearthed clip exposes shocking claim by Newsom’s wife about inmates at violent California prison
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is getting raked over the coals for comments she made several years ago, suggesting criminals housed in a notorious California prison, which was known for housing violent criminals and death row prisoners, got there by “accident.”
Siebel Newsom’s comments came as she was discussing a tragedy in her younger life at an event in 2016. A few days before her seventh birthday, Siebel Newsom was involved in a fatal golf cart accident that ultimately killed her sister.
“I had to be very raw when we interviewed the young men who were juvenile offenders at San Quentin. I told them about my own loss, where I lost my older sister a few days before my seventh birthday and I blame myself for her death and I share that because they ultimately were accused of committing these violent crimes and sentenced for life, and I think it shocked them that this blonde lady, who was interviewing them, had a similar story – was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time – but wasn’t punished the way they were because clearly it was an accident, but theirs was probably an accident too,” Siebel Newsom said when discussing ways to connect with others.
NEWSOM’S WIFE SLAMS TRUMP FIRINGS OF BONDI, NOEM, SPARKING PANEL DEBATE
Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom stands with wife Jennifer at a Sacramento voting center. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
“Anyways, I share that – I guess – I quite enjoy spending time with people and being real and unmasking and showing them that it’s safe to unmask themselves.”
A spokesperson for Governor Newsom’s wife clarified that the remarks in the 2016 interview with the First Partner, were referring to incarcerated individuals for her 2015 documentary “The Mask You Live In.”
The spokesperson did not provide an on-the-record statement but did point Fox News Digital to a social media post from Gov. Newsom’s press office calling out the media for being “focused on running nonstop hit pieces on California’s First Partner,” while the president is “threatening to obliterate a civilization tonight.”
On Tuesday, the same day the clip began going viral on social media, President Donald Trump issued an ominous message on his social media platform Truth Social, indicating “a whole civilization will die tonight,” amid his threat of a looming U.S. attack against Iranian bridges and power plants.
“This is the MAGA distraction machine — in full force,” concluded the social media post, which included news segments criticizing Siebel Newsom on Tuesday.
GAVIN NEWSOM’S WIFE SAYS SHE GAVE HER BOYS DOLLS TO PLAY WITH IN RESURFACED CLIP
Jennifer Siebel Newsom speaks at Planned Parenthood funding bill signing ceremony (Screenshot/Gavin Newsom’s YouTube Page)
However, Siebel Newsom’s resurfaced comments still garnered attention on Tuesday from conservative critics who called the California governor’s spouse out for virtue signaling.
In direct response to Siebel Newsom’s claims that San Quentin inmates got in their position by “accident,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., shot back sarcastically: “Yeah, like the time that guy accidentally stabbed that dude 27 times.”
“What the…” commented Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, Harmeet Dhillon, in a social media post responding to the 2016 remarks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and first partner Jennifer Siebel-Newsom embrace during a campaign event in support of Proposition 50 in San Francisco, Monday, Nov. 3, 2025. (Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“She represents everything that is wrong with California,” comedian Adam Carolla added.
“Newsom’s wife’s latest virtue signal is telling San Quentin lifers that she faced zero consequences when her sister was killed because it was an accident, then telling them their life sentences are probably for ‘accidents’ too,” wrote conservative women’s sports activist Riley Gaines. “Peak elite tone-deafness.”
Politics
Column: We’re stuck with an unchecked mad king until January
Amid all the alarming and unhinged comments of the president of the United States in recent days threatening Iran with genocide — remarks beyond even the usual cray-cray blather from Donald Trump — it was a statement from his spokesperson on Tuesday that really put the madness in the White House in perspective.
“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” Karoline Leavitt said.
She issued those words just hours before Trump’s 8 p.m. Tuesday deadline for Iran to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping or face Armageddon — that is, war crimes by the United States. The statement from the White House press secretary was as clear a description as Americans could get of governance under Trump these days: A mad king reigns, virtually unchecked.
And as a practical matter, there is nothing under the Constitution, neither impeachment nor removal under the 25th Amendment, that can be done about him. There’s only voters’ opportunity to eject the complicit Republican majorities in the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, to install a Democratic — and democratic — check on Trump for the remaining two years of his term.
By now we know that, just before Trump’s deadline to Iran warning “a whole civilization will die tonight,” he announced a fragile two-week ceasefire for negotiations. The commander in chief declared victory, natch. But so did Iran. And it had the better of the argument: Iran continued to control and monetize passage through the strait, unlike before Trump’s war began Feb. 28, and already on Wednesday it flexed that power by closing the route in retaliation for Israeli strikes. The ceasefire also lets Iran retain possession of its enriched, nearly bomb-grade uranium, and the nation won Trump’s offer of possible tariff and sanctions relief.
So much for the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he demanded in a post a month ago.
I’m writing these words on Wednesday. Who knows where things will stand by the time you’re reading this? “Only the president knows.”
Trump has fluctuated, reversed and contradicted himself repeatedly — even within a single social-media screed or chest-thumping performance for the press — since he ordered war against Iran nearly six weeks ago, without notice to Congress, let alone its authorization. Since Sunday, he’s variously called Iran’s leaders “crazy bastards” and “animals” and taken credit for “Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail.”
Presidential rule by fiat and whim would be wrong in any case under the Constitution’s checks and balances of power, and specifically of war power. But in Trump’s case, America has a president who lately has piled on the evidence that he is mentally unstable, unfit for the office.
And spare us the cheerleaders’ claims on Fox News about how he’s playing multidimensional chess. When even Alex Jones likens Trump to “crazy King Lear” and calls for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from power — echoing former Trump promoters including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, among others — you know he’s crossed a line by his unilateral war-making and profane threats (on Easter Sunday!) of genocidal apocalypse.
The evidence of Trump’s dangerous instability has been there from his political genesis. In his first term, he warned he’d unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against nuclear-armed North Korea then declared that he “fell in love” with dictator Kim Jong-un (without achieving any diminution in Kim’s arsenal). He celebrates the deaths of political enemies and prosecutes those still living. He repeatedly interrupts himself on some policy question to bloviate about his ballroom plans.
He’s ordered armed agents into American neighborhoods on immigration raids, then expressed neither responsibility nor remorse when citizens died and legal residents got deported. The national security leaders of his first term let it be known that they’d prevented him from acting on his worst impulses, but there’s no chance of that from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2021 described first-term Trump as being in mental decline and “fascist to the core.”
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Trump has gotten better in the intervening five years.
The country “can’t be a therapy session for … a troubled man like this,” Trump’s first-term attorney general, William P. Barr, told CBS in 2023 as Trump campaigned to return to office.
If only the presidency were therapy for Trump. Instead he’s like a power addict in the world’s most powerful job, mainlining its intoxicants, and no one will stop him. Only people with extraordinary egos seek the White House in the first place, but when an actual egomaniac inhabits that warping bubble of butter-uppers, there’s danger. I remain haunted by the words of retired Gen. John F. Kelly, Trump’s first-term Homeland Security secretary and then White House chief of staff, who in 2023 said of Trump’s potential reelection: “God help us.”
Having failed twice to convict and remove Trump in his first term, Democrats have shied from a third attempt, until now. Scores in Congress have called for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment to oust him. There’s some value in sending a message. But Democrats are offering supporters false hope. A Republican-led Congress and a Cabinet of clownish sycophants will not exercise the powers they have, even against a mad king.
The authors of the Constitution, having thrown off a king, debated at length how to guard against a power-crazed president. But they didn’t anticipate political parties that put tribal loyalty over the country. That partisanship has rendered the high bars to a president’s removal — a vote of two-thirds of the Senate for conviction after impeachment, or, under the 25th Amendment, action by the vice president and a Cabinet majority — all but insurmountable.
That leaves the voters, who in special and off-year elections as recently as Tuesday have shown their zeal to punish Trump’s party. We can hope that a new Congress will check him come January.
And we can pray.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
-
Atlanta, GA5 days ago1 teenage girl killed, another injured in shooting at Piedmont Park, police say
-
Education1 week agoVideo: We Put Dyson’s $600 Vacuum to the Test
-
Movie Reviews1 week agoVaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale
-
Georgia3 days agoGeorgia House Special Runoff Election 2026 Live Results
-
Pennsylvania3 days agoParents charged after toddler injured by wolf at Pennsylvania zoo
-
Education1 week agoVideo: YouTube’s C.E.O. on the Rise of Video and the Decline of Reading
-
Milwaukee, WI4 days agoPotawatomi Casino Hotel evacuated after fire breaks out in rooftop HVAC system
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Toy Testing with a Discerning Bodega Cat