Illinois v. Trump

On behalf of 104 local governments and leaders, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump administration’s plan to send more National Guard troops into Chicago. The brief asks the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that blocked the administration’s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Chicago.

The coalition argues that the president’s efforts to federalize state troops without consent from governors — and without any explanation or identifiable justification to do so — violates the Constitution and long-standing laws. It also sets a dangerous precedent to unleash federal military troops from one state to invade and occupy another.

The brief details three main risks to local governments if the federal government is allowed to unilaterally deploy troops in American cities:

• Erosion of local control: The Constitution and federal laws expressly grant states and cities authority over local policing and public safety. Federal military intervention directly undermines and violates this authority.
• Threats to public safety and economic stability: Military presence deters tourism, disrupts businesses and heightens fear among residents, especially in communities already targeted by rhetoric from the federal government.
• A dangerous precedent for authoritarian power: Federal troops who patrol local communities without consent could normalize political retaliation through force. This could lead to any city being targeted for any reason at any time, eroding the rule of law and threatening democracy itself.

The coalition represents tens of millions of Americans across states and political affiliations. 

Update:

In a second amicus brief, Public Rights Project and a coalition of 109 local governments and local government leaders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s decision blocking deployment of the National Guard in and around Chicago.

The brief emphasizes that the National Guard should be used only in exceptional circumstances. It explains that recent calls from the president to deploy troops in cities interfere with local law enforcement and undermine community stability nationwide. Our coalition says that sending in the military destabilizes cities, escalates tensions, and damages people’s well-being and local economies. We also argue the federal government hasn’t met the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard in Chicago — which was already been ruled on by two federal courts.

The coalition submitted the brief in support of the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago after the U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court, on an emergency basis, to immediately put the lower court’s ruling on hold. It also asked the Court to reverse the ruling as the case moves forward.

Read the amicus brief.

Update: 

On December 23, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to lift an injunction blocking the Trump Administration’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois. The lower courts’ rulings that had halted the deployment in Chicago remain in place.

In the decision, the Court explained that the deployment of the military to “execute the laws” is “exceptional” and generally prohibited. To call in the National Guard, the President must first determine that he is “unable” with the help of the military to execute U.S. laws — and the Administration failed to show why that wasn’t possible here. Because the government didn’t meet this basic requirement, the Court concluded there was no lawful basis for the National Guard deployment.

As a result, the injunction remains in effect. The decision affirms important constitutional limits on the use of military force in civilian communities and reinforces the principle that the federal government cannot invade cities and states without clear authority under the law. It is also a huge victory for the 109 local governments and local government leaders that PRP supported by submitting an amicus brief in this significant case.

Read the full opinion here.