Courts test Trump's National Guard use in Oregon and Illinois
President Donald Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Portland and Chicago faced legal challenges this week, as the administration argued that Democratic-led states are obstructing immigration enforcement. Lawyers cited constitutional precedents to justify protecting federal facilities amid protests. Democratic leaders decried the moves as threats to state sovereignty.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard arguments over Trump's deployment of about 200 National Guard soldiers to Portland, Oregon, following a federal judge's block on the action. The Justice Department appealed, claiming unrest prompted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities necessitated the troops. "For months, the ICE facility in Portland and the federal law enforcement officers who work there have faced a steady stream of violence, threats of violence and harassment from violent agitators bent on impeding federal immigration enforcement," said Eric McArthur, arguing for the department.
The administration invoked the rebellion statute, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of obstruction, asserting courts cannot second-guess Trump's judgment. South Texas College of Law professor Joshua Blackman supported this, stating, "The statute lets the president make the judgment over the need. It's not clear to me that a court can second-guess it." He referenced McCulloch v. Maryland, which upheld federal supremacy, and Neagle v. Cunningham from 1890, affirming the president's duty to protect federal officers under the take care clause.
In Illinois, Governor JB Pritzker sued to block a similar deployment after chaotic anti-ICE protests in Broadview on October 3, 2025. The Department of Homeland Security criticized Pritzker for inaction, while Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson created "ICE-free zones" on city property. Conservative commentator Josh Hammer likened Democratic resistance to 19th-century nullification, tweeting, "Illinois's own Abraham Lincoln had some ideas about how to deal with this John C. Calhoun-esque ‘nullification.’"
CATO Institute director Matt Cavedon countered that policing falls under state responsibilities per the 10th Amendment. "Any powers that are not conferred on the federal government are reserved to the states, respectively," he said, noting it was unusual for a Republican administration to expand federal powers. The cases, potentially headed to the Supreme Court, highlight tensions over federal versus state authority in immigration enforcement.