In a contentious legal landscape, a federal appeals court reaffirmed on Thursday the decision of a Biden-appointed judge to prevent President Trump’s National Guard troop deployment to Chicago.
Last Thursday, Judge April Perry issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting Trump’s initiative, citing potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act alongside the 10th and 14th Amendments.
In response to unrest, President Trump had mobilized Texas National Guard troops, ostensibly to shield ICE agents from threats posed by far-left activists, including Antifa.
White House Advisor Stephen Miller defended this action, arguing, “The National Guard’s mission in Chicago is to safeguard federal lives and properties that are under continuous threat. Activated under *federal control*, these troops can be sourced from any state when necessary, akin to how military personnel are deployed from various bases to protect federal resources.”
The National Guard’s mission in Chicago is to protect federal lives and property that are facing constant criminal assault. The guard protecting DHS is activated under *federal control* and therefore, like any federal troops, can emanate from any state if such resources prove…
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) October 9, 2025
Following an initial appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals briefly lifted Judge Perry’s TRO on troop mobilization. However, a follow-up order confirmed the upholding of her blockade against troop deployment, with a unanimous decision by a panel comprising judges from three different administrations: Rovner (George H. W. Bush), Hamilton (Obama), and St. Eve (George W. Bush).
The appeals court underscored Judge Perry’s observation regarding the lack of “sufficient evidence of rebellion or a danger of rebellion.”
The saga unfolds further, as Judge Karin Immergut, nominated by Trump, recently blocked another deployment aimed at Portland. Despite the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifting her earlier TRO, her restriction on troop deployment remains intact—adding another layer to this ongoing judicial dialogue.
