Trump Blocked From Sending National Guard to Chicago for Now
The TRO expires on October 23.
U.S. District Judge April M. Perry placed a temporary restraining order (TRO) on President Donald Trump’s order to send the National Guard anywhere in Illinois.
Trump only threatened to send the troops to Chicago.
The TRO expires on October 23.
Perry told DOJ lawyers that she “observed a ‘lack of credibility’ in several declarations” made by people in the Trump administration, according to The Washington Post.
The judge also wanted to know “how broadly troops might be used.”
“I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” Perry told the DOJ.
That’s an apparent reference to Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard to Portland after deploying them in Los Angeles and DC.
A few days ago, Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard from Texas to Chicago.
On October 6, Illinois immediately sued to stop the troops.
That same day, Perry refused to issue a TRO at that time, wanting to wait for Thursday’s oral arguments.
Numerous reports came out that the troops arrived in Chicago on October 7, including The Chicago Tribune:
Tribune journalists saw multiple military members, dressed in camouflage and carrying long guns, on federal property in Elwood, a far southwest suburb that is home to a U.S. Army Reserve training center. Soldiers, who wore “T” patches on their arms identical to the ones shown in a picture tweeted by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday, could be seen walking in and out of mobile sleeping units on the site.
On Monday, a defense contractor told the Tribune that he was setting up sleeper units, showers and a dining hall for 250 people at the makeshift base.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dear God these judges are nuts
Over 6,000 people have been shot over 10 years in Chicago
We elected President Trump to run this country. Not rogue little judges
These Dhimmi-crat “judges” — as with Dhimmi-crat voters and apparatchiks, at-large — don’t care about the urban carnage, at all. Least of all when the victims (and, perpetrators) are mostly black.
I shared this link, during the brouhaha over #47’s deployment of troops in D.C. It’s D.C. Metro Police Department’s unsolved homicide statistics and victim profiles, dating back to 1951. The vast majority of the victims are black. Thousands of them, over decades.
“Black lives matter,” my rear end. The vile Dhimmi-crats are hypocrites of the lowest order.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/unsolved-homicides
Yup. Another robed cretin interferes with a legal process. Ignore her.
Yup. Another robed cretin interferes with a legal process. Ignore her.
Ignore this bullshit and send them in anyway. If they don’t like it, too f’ing bad. It’s well past time for the gloves to come off.
Why is a judge even involved? And this is a very serious question. The law says that if the President determines he cannot enforce the law under current circumstance he can call up the national guard. Full stop. It’s the president’s decision. The people elect the president to make decision.
Seventy-seven million people voted for Trump to make that call. The law says if the president determines he cannot enforce the law and all the district judges agree then he can call up the guard. It says if the president, and only the president, determines he can’t enforce the law he can call up the guard.
Why does the judicial branch have any say in this. The answer is, that branch has no say. Why won’t Trump ignore the court. Why won’t SCOTUS say the judicial branch has no say????
I don’t understand it either. I don’t remember any President in my lifetime being so hobbled by so-called judges. We did not vote for these people, yet they can somehow stop our President, the Commander in Chief, from doing his most basic duty.
The hobbling is definitely a feature, not a bug.
No, it doesn’t. There is no such law. 10 USC 12406 says “Whenever the President is unable”, not “whenever the president determines that he is unable”. You made that part up. By the text of the law the president’s inability to execute the laws of the United States with the regular forces is a question of objective fact, not the president’s determination. And thus, at least presumptively, it may be tested in court.
No, it doesn’t. There is no such law. 10 USC 12406 says “Whenever the President is unable”, not “whenever the president determines that he is unable”. You made that part up.
By the text of the law the president’s inability to execute the laws of the United States with the regular forces is a question of objective fact, not the president’s determination. And thus, at least presumptively, it may be tested in court.
On the other hand this power is in the National Defense realm, particularly the first two justifications for Presidential exercise of the power. It’s inherently a ‘judgement call’ for the President. Whether the power should have been delegated or whether the power is too broad is a political question for Congress as an institution to address.
IMO, it seems very clear that there’s not a Judicial role here to preclude the President from invoking his delegated power anymore than other powers delegated to the Executive Branch. There might be a role on the backend for the Judiciary but I would liken it to 1A and gov’t censorship; can’t stop the speech BUT if the speech is used unlawfully (to incite immediate mob violence as an example) then that unlawful use can be dealt with by judiciary.
Stop replying to Milhouse. He’s a trol. Probably a bot.
He isn’t either of those things. He’s a smart, well read, independent thinker. Can he be a bit pedantic? Sure. Is his communication style often annoying? Yep. The fact remains that he brings valuable insights, stakes out his perspective, forces well thought rebuttals and his participation in discussions sharpens the arguments of the rest of us…which is kinda the entire point of a worthwhile comment section; well reasoned, good faith discussion.
The entire topic here is who determines whether the president can or can’t execute the laws with the regular forces. That is what the case is about. And here comes this fucking liar dging and tries to tell us that the law explicitly says “if the president determines”, and so the case has no basis. Except that dging made it up. The law does not say that. Which makes dging a liar.
There is no such law? So the Constitution isn’t law.
Wow. You ARE a fake lawyer, Democrat.
And please tell us all, how can one be unable to do something without first determining such?
The fact that these tin-pot judges think they have the power to stop the commander in chief from putting federal troops on federal land is itself more than proof that the president is being rendered unable to enforce the law.
Your leftist semantic games are garbage, Democrat. Your mask is gone and the shame of your existence is visible to all.
Please stop replying to Milhouse. It’s futile and useless. He’s a troll, if not a bot.
No, there is no such law, you fucking liar. Nothing in the constitution says anything about this. Dging is a fucking liar too, and was just caught making up a law that doesn’t exist. You are literally a demon from Hell; go back there and take dging with you.
While I agree with you conceptually Milhouse, the problem lies in
defining “when the President is unable to enforce the laws.”
What is the “objective standard” for that, say in enforcing immigration law? We know that conservatively there are six or seven million illegals in the U.S. and we know that there are conservatively a hundred thousand or so in Chicago. Immigration is a Federal matter. Now, objectively and by the letter of the law, how many illegal immigrants should be permitted to live in the U.S.? The answer is, of course, zero.
If there are a hundred thousand criminals in one city (and illegals are criminals under Federal Law) and there is resistance to their removal, I think that there is objectively -just from raw numbers alone- an inability for the Federal Government to enforce the law. However it’s a judgement call, and my judgement doesn’t matter. I can’t substitute my judgement for that of the President, and I don’t think a judge can either. What “objective standard” could a judge determine? If the correct number of illegal immigrants under the law is zero, and only the Federal Prosecutors can exercise discretion in prosecution, I don’t see a role for a Judge. They have the power to rule if an individual is determined to be illegal, but not to stop attempts to enforce the law.
I will add as a final note that just because a law has not been enforced in the past, the government is not prohibited from enforcing it fully now.
Please stop replying to Milhouse. It’s futile and useless. He’s a troll, if not a bot.
Article three judges do not have any discretion as far as deportations though either. Article 2 judges take care of that
There is no such thing as an “Article 2 judge”. Immigration “judges” are not judges. They are the president’s flunkies, part of the executive branch, and every person has the right of habeas corpus before a real judge. If a person believes his deportation is illegal, no one can remove his right to a hearing before a real judge to determine whether the facts are as the government (including the “immigration judge”) alleges them to be.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic.
Hodge, all questions of law are determined by the judiciary. That is its role, to say what the law is. If there’s a question of fact, it has to be determined in court. The president can’t just assert whatever he feels like.
The point here is dging’s fucking lie that the law explicitly gives the president the power to make this determination, and therefore it can’t be reviewed. Dging made it up.
Invoke this:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim
Invoke what? That’s not a working link, but nothing in 10 USC ch. 13 supports dging’s claim. Dging made it up because he’s a fucking liar.
Milhouse: who does the ‘determining’? Do the courts have the right to disagree and therefore stop the President from exercising the legal authority given to him by the Congress?
It would be certainly within the Constitution if a court said “10 USC 12406 is unconstitutional because blah-blah.” Courts make that determination all the time. But assuming that 10 USC 12406 passes muster that way (and it apparently does), where in that statute does a district court judge have the power to disagree with the President and have that disagreement take precedence?
In other words, if a district court judge and a President disagree on whether the President is unable, why does the judge win?
The constitution gives the judicial power to the courts. That includes determining questions of fact and law. If the law says “if it’s raining you may do X”, and it’s not raining, you can’t claim that you’ve determined it’s raining and so you can do X. The courts can and must tell you no, it is not raining, and thus you cannot do what you want to do.
Only if the law said “If you decide it’s raining then you can do X”, then it wouldn’t matter that you’re lying. The courts would have to defer to your “determination”, because the law puts it in your hands. And that’s the fraud that dging tried to pull here. But it’s not true. The law does not say that.
In other words, Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act if he thinks it is necessary.
per Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Oct 11
With resistance to ICE in many blue cities, there’s been a lot of talk about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. There are other, lesser statutes that he can employ, but this is the big gun. It intentionally gives the President enormous freedom and power to put down resistance to the law.
This is the relevant part of the Insurrection Act:
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.
Third, discretionary language again: “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
It’s entirely up to the President under the statute.
It’s hubris plus TDS. In their hearts all these judges know that they can’t substitute their own judgment for the president’s in this case. But they want to be popular with their crowd so they do it anyway.
It’s nuts to send NG to Chicago. Don’t do it.
It’ll be a magnet for antyfa snipers. Someone’s national guard dear son/daughter will be shot dead – likely more than one. It’s not improbable that a bomb will be detonated. Maybe multiple car bombs.
What happens afterwards? Napalm the business district? Artillery time on target the suburbs?
Lets not end up mouthing prayers for bereaved parents when it doesn’t have to happen in the first place.
Your argument is the EXACT same one KKK’ers in the 60’s used against sending both NG troops and other LE’s (FBI and US Marshalls) to enforce desegregation laws. The local politicians, officials, and police all agreed the problem wasn’t the red-neck mouth-breathers assaulting folks – it was the “outsiders” enforcing the civil rights laws that were.
If those breaking the law get a veto on the law being enforced by threatening the enforcers – there is no law.
Funny, your argument mirrors the fascist IJA reasoning for invading Manchuria. Are you a fascist?
Civil rights aren’t at issue here. Black people literally voted the current and past mayors into office. This has nothing to do with the constitution.
We won’t be having a civil conversation after the KKK bullcrap.
If there was any substance behind your words, you wouldn’t have to accuse people you know nothing about of being Fascists.
You’re whining about a KKK comparison while you call someone a fascist for suggesting the law should be upheld in EVERY state?
Imperial Japan was not fascist.
Theirs was a much older system.
So we shouldn’t enforce the law because criminals won’t like it? Are you retarded?
No, I believe his argument is if we enforce laws that makes us fascists. Or some shit like that 😂😂
Concern troll is concerned.
Tiki, the NG would protect federal facilities in Broadview and Chicago. But if the NG is deployed more widely and an transtifa wannabe decides to start shooting, the NG will have a kinetic answer. That’s sort of how it works.
Yes, we’d prefer that it not happen. But we also prefer to enforce the law.
Did George Wallace miss a trick? Is it really this easy to prevent a POTUS from deploying the NG to enforce the law?
Government Wallace didn’t have Commissar Judges then, his bad luck.
Wallace had already called up the NG to defy the law. And he had openly announced his intention to defy it, with the help of the Guard, so he couldn’t deny that it was happening. So what was he supposed to argue in court? That the president was able to execute the law against both him and the Guard with the regular forces and thus didn’t need the Guard?!
Chicago has seceded from the Union. They cut Federal jurisdiction from the city, cut funds according is my suggestion.
Naturally, she’s a Biden appointee.
You can tell a lot about a person by observing who they choose to ally themselves with.
It wouldn’t matter what job in government was being offered to me, even if it were my lifelong dream job, if it were being offered by someone as deeply corrupt and perfectly illegitimate as Joe Biden, my conscience would dictate that I’d have to refuse.
Trump should hire a group of right-wing trannies, masked and dressed in black, for this assignment. That would confuse the left.
dont think the lincoln loggers would assist
we are a nation of laws
until and unless those laws constitute insurrection against the people
so any judge upholding any opinions >>laws that put or keep good people in danger from not only street thuggs but their political leaders is now in
violation of the morals and ethics needed to maintain a civilized society
her opinion>law is nothing more than the continued fodder and blather that the left hoists upon our children who are too young too naive too helpless to combat it
is that who we are??
Every single time the presidents use of the National Guard has made it to the Supreme Court they have said he has the authority. What we have is a bunch of activist, not judge, disregarding the law and the associated facts. This case will end no differently. These judges need to removed, especially after the SC has repeatedly had to correct them.
I’m going to guess April Perry lives in a safe neighborhood and doesn’t have to worry about bullets flying through her home in the middle of the night. Her pay by the way is 247K, Great work if you can suck up and get it.
Another retarded traitor judge that should be ignored.
Our Nixon impersonator references 10 usc 12406 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406) which simply provides that the guard is under federal authority, and implies that the President should use the regular armed forces first.
Unfortunately for him, 10 U.S.C. § 253 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253) is rather more on point, providing:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
As he considers necessary.
Outhouse flexing those pretend lawyer “skills” in defense of the left again. Shocker.
“Paddy M” / “Azathoth” lying his face off again. Certainly not a shocker. It’s all you do.
Upholding the law and the truth is not a left-wing cause.
You don’t uphold the law, Outhouse. You pretend to uphold the law.