A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump cannot deploy National Guard troops in Illinois.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court’s temporary restraining order, concluding that “the facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois” under federal law, even after granting substantial deference to his assertions. 

The legal battle stems from “Operation Midway Blitz,” an immigration enforcement operation announced September 8, 2025, that escalated federal presence in the Chicago area. Since the operation began, the Department of Homeland Security reports more than 1,500 arrests across Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Chicago field office jurisdiction, which encompasses Illinois and five other states.​​

Tensions centered on a federal ICE processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, a suburb about twelve miles west of downtown Chicago. While protesters have demonstrated at the facility for 19 years, including weekly prayer vigils, crowds grew following Operation Midway Blitz’s launch. Confrontations between protesters and federal agents led to the deployment of tear gas, pepper spray, and bean bag rounds.​​

On October 4, President Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize the National Guard, stating that federal facilities “have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing Federal law enforcement activities.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth subsequently called approximately 300 Illinois National Guard members and 200 Texas National Guard members into federal service.

Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit on October 6, arguing the federalization violated statutory requirements, the Tenth Amendment, and the Posse Comitatus Act. U.S. District Judge April M. Perry granted a temporary restraining order on October 9, blocking the deployment after finding the administration’s claims about violent protests dubious.​​

The appeals court examined whether two statutory predicates were satisfied: whether there was a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” under § 12406(2), or whether the President was “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” under § 12406(3).

The Seventh Circuit panel rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the President’s decision to federalize the Guard is entirely unreviewable by courts. While acknowledging that the President deserves “a great level of deference” on national security matters, the court concluded that the statute enumerates specific preconditions that are subject to judicial review.

On the question of rebellion, the court emphasized that “political opposition is not rebellion.” The panel stated: “The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority.”​

The court distinguished between protected protest activity and actual rebellion, noting that protests do not become rebellions “merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants.”

Regarding the administration’s claim it was unable to execute federal law, the court found insufficient evidence. The panel noted that federal facilities remained open despite demonstrations, disruptions were quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities, and immigration arrests and deportations proceeded apace. In fact, DHS and ICE had publicly touted Operation Midway Blitz’s success, with press releases declaring that protests had not slowed enforcement efforts and that deportation numbers had significantly increased year over year.

A key issue involved competing accounts of events in Broadview. The district court credited declarations from state and local law enforcement over federal government declarations, finding the federal accounts unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were contradicted by independent, objective evidence.​

The record showed that on typical days, fewer than 50 protesters gathered at the Broadview facility, with crowds never exceeding 200 according to Broadview Police—though the administration suggested approximately 300 on one occasion. When confrontations occurred, Illinois law enforcement’s “Unified Command” of state and local agencies maintained control. In an internal email on October 5, an ICE leader at the Broadview facility praised the effectiveness of state and local law enforcement’s coordination.​

The court also noted that on October 4—the same day Trump federalized the Guard—state and local law enforcement quickly controlled a demonstration of a few dozen protesters without DHS intervention.

While the appeals court blocked deployment of Guard troops within Illinois, it allowed them to remain under federal control, finding that harm to Illinois from federalization alone “appears to be relatively minimal.” The court acknowledged, however, “that circumstances might arise that could increase plaintiffs’ potential harm, including if Illinois needs its Guard members who have been commandeered by the federal government to assist with state matters.”

The court emphasized its conclusions are preliminary given the limited record and expedited procedural posture. The panel noted “it is possible that events could transpire that satisfy one of § 12406’s factual predicates,” but concluded that “the administration has not shown that is true today.”

The temporary restraining order is set to expire October 23, with a hearing scheduled for October 22 to assess a possible extension.