Court battles over National Guard troops deliver win to Chicago while Portland awaits a decision. Get the key takeaways
By Elizabeth Wolfe, Bill Kirkos, Holmes Lybrand, CNN
(CNN) — Federal courtrooms on opposite sides of the country on Thursday served as stages for the ongoing showdown between Democratic-led cities and the Trump administration, as judges weighed whether the president is exceeding his authority by deploying National Guard troops to quell demonstrations outside ICE facilities near Chicago and Portland.
In a scathing oral ruling from Chicago, US District Court Judge April Perry granted a temporary restraining order halting the Trump administration’s deployment of soldiers in the state of Illinois for two weeks.
“I have seen no credible evidence that there has been rebellion in the state of Illinois” that would justify federalizing National Guard soldiers, Perry said, calling Department of Homeland Security assessments of the protests “unreliable.”
Sending in troops would “only add fuel to the fire,” Perry added. It’s unclear what the next steps will be for guardsmen already on the ground in the Chicago area. The Department of Defense told CNN troops “will remain in a federalized status” while the order is in force.
Meanwhile on the West Coast, a three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the Trump administration should be blocked from federalizing the Oregon National Guard to respond to ICE protests in Portland. They have yet to release a decision, though state Attorney General Dan Rayfield said he expects a ruling “in the coming days.”
Though the hearings occurred thousands of miles apart, the arguments were eerily similar, pitching both sides against each other as they painted starkly different pictures of the reality on the ground – and fundamentally disagreed over whether it rises to the severity of federal intervention.
The outcome of the twin hearings could set a precedent for future federal intervention in local law enforcement, though Trump has suggested he would look for a way to circumvent the courts if they do not rule in his favor.
Here are the key takeaways from today’s proceedings.
Federal and state officials offer dueling realities
Leaders in Oregon and Illinois have emphatically disputed the Trump administration’s characterizations of their cities as “war-ravaged” and uncontrollably violent, arguing in court that the situation on the ground is not as extreme as federal officials are portraying it to be.
In her ruling, Judge Perry noted the largest protests at the ICE facility in the suburb of Broadview, Illinois, did not exceed about 200 attendees. In that instance, she said, about 100 state and local law enforcement officers were present and capable of handling the crowd.
Intervention from federal officials has not seemed necessary, and the deployment of troops into Chicago’s suburb could fuel “civil unrest,” Perry said.
When federal officers have become involved, their use of chemical agents has “been arbitrary and indiscriminate,” she added, citing Broadview police. Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson has previously accused federal agents of creating “chaos” by “needlessly deploying tear gas, pepper spray, mace and rubber bullets at individuals and reporters.”
The Trump administration has accused protesters in Broadview of fostering “ongoing and sustained violence” against ICE personnel and federal property.
In the administration’s filings in Chicago, attorneys claim they have documented injuries including a torn ACL, a hyper-extended knee, multiple lacerations, and a beard ripped from an officer’s face. Some officers have also been hospitalized after being physically tackled by rioters, the filing alleges.
An Illinois attorney said some of the conduct by protesters against officials is “of course deplorable,” but local law enforcement should be given deference to handle the situation.
Appeals court appears skeptical of limiting Portland deployment
The three-judge appeals court panel – which included two Trump appointees – challenged the Oregon attorney on several occasions during the hearing, appearing skeptical of their claims about the severity of the protests.
During arguments, state Assistant Attorney General Stacy Chaffin pointed out that a lower court found “that the Portland ICE facility protests were small, less than 30 people, largely sedate and generally peaceful.”
Judge Ryan D. Nelson – a Trump appointee – shot back, saying the claim was “clearly erroneous.”
“There’s clearly been protests that were above 30 (people),” Nelson said. “Unless you’re trying to limit it to certain time periods, we have evidence in the record that there were protests as much as 200.”
“It was generally small,” Chaffin said.
Department of Justice attorneys told the judges protests at the facility have “significantly impeded” federal agents. DOJ attorney Eric McArthur argued the demonstrators are “hardly the peaceful and sedate crowd” that the State of Oregon “tried to make it out to be.”
The judges’ questions indicated their ruling may consider protests that took place in months past, not the current situation on the ground.
Judge Bridget Bade, the other Trump appointee, noted the ICE facility was closed for more than three weeks starting in mid-June at the height of the protest violence.
“Are those facts that are not relevant for the president to determine the threat and whether there’s a threat to DHS being able to enforce the 400 laws it’s tasked with enforcing?” asked Bade.
Chaffin argued the court should not judge the need for military action in Portland now based on events from months ago. Oregon attorneys argued that Trump acted retroactively when he cited past clashes as justification for sending in the Guard.
Nelson again challenged the state.
“You’re saying, well, if you don’t hit it within a narrow window, you lose your right (to enact the military),” Nelson said. “That just seems unnaturally constrained.”
Even if the court sides with the Trump administration and allows federalization of the Oregon National Guard, troops still cannot be deployed to Portland under a separate court order in effect until at least October 19.
Everyone agrees: Rebellion should be taken seriously
“Rebellion, Insurrection. War. These are heavy words,” an Illinois attorney said at the top of the Chicago hearing.
Attorneys in both cases seemed to agree that the existential threat of a rebellion against the US government – one of the few circumstances in which the president has the legal authority to federalize the National Guard – is a serious matter.
But what constitutes a rebellion and how it is defined in the eyes of the law was the key point of disagreement between the states and the Trump administration in both hearings.
“There is no rebellion in Illinois,” an attorney for the state said, calling the claim of a threat of rebellion “audacious.”
In her ruling, Perry said she saw no evidence of rebellion, which she defined as “deliberate, organized resistance openly opposing the government as a whole.”
Earlier, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued there did not need to be a real act of rebellion, only the threat of one.
He also said the court doesn’t need to decide what a rebellion is.
“I think I do,” Perry replied.
Meanwhile in Portland, Judge Susan P. Graber asked the DOJ attorneys at the top of the hearing whether the demonstrations in Portland met the legal standard of a “rebellion.”
McArthur, the DOJ attorney, said rebellion is “a deliberate, organized resistance by force and arms to the laws and operations of the government.”
The state argued for a stricter legal definition. Chaffin said rebellions “are unusual and extreme emergencies,” pointing out that the other circumstances in which presidents have the power to federalize guardsmen involve invasion from foreign powers. She argued the situation should be considered a rebellion when circumstances arise, “which may be vital to the existence of the Union.”
DOJ didn’t rule out expanding Guard beyond ICE facilities
Pressed by Judge Perry about whether the National Guard presence in Illinois would be limited to certain locations, the Justice Department suggested they could be deployed beyond the area around the Broadview ICE facility.
Perry asked whether soldiers may also be present in neighborhoods, including near schools. Hamilton said that it could be possible when protecting federal agents or property.
“Will they be solving crime in Chicago?” Perry asked Hamilton.
“Certainly, to an extent,” Hamilton responded. He added: “The mission, again, is a federal protective one.”
State warns of ‘grave risk of wanton tyranny’
As the Chicago hearing came to a close, the judge heard a final plea from the state, urging her to recognize what it sees as an existential threat to constitutionally protected states’ rights.
Christopher Wells, an attorney from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, asserted the day’s arguments represented one thing. “That fight is the Tenth Amendment. Full stop,” he said, referring to the amendment that reserves power for the states.
Wells described Trump’s attempt to circumvent the state’s will as shocking and “authoritarian.” He warned the moment represented a “grave risk of wanton tyranny.”
The Justice Department followed with closing statements, and Hamilton argued Trump’s judgment is “unreviewable.”
One of the judges reviewing the Portland case acknowledged concerns about the potential for setting a dangerous precedent.
Judge Nelson told the court he was not “trying to diminish” concerns that the National Guard’s deployment is a “slippery slope” and did not rule out the possibility that troops may be used unlawfully in the future.
“I’m not trying to diminish that,” Nelson said of the concern of unlawful use of troops. “It may well be that the forces are used in an improper way, but we don’t have any evidence of that right now.”
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
CNN’s Andy Rose and Shimon Prokupecz contributed to this report.
