On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to halt a lower court decision that prevents President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois, as reported by RedState. Justice Samuel Alito, in a forceful dissent, criticized the courts for obstructing the Trump administration’s efforts to safeguard federal officers.
Bob Hoge detailed this development:
Justice Alito Expresses Discontent, Labels SCOTUS Ruling on Chicago National Guard as ‘Unwise’ and ‘Imprudent’
Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker celebrated the court’s decision, taking it as a win. However, as Joe Cunningham pointed out, Pritzker’s enthusiasm might be premature since the Supreme Court has yet to deliver a conclusive verdict on the matter.
Adding another layer of perspective, John Yoo, a seasoned attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush era, offered a distinct analysis of the Supreme Court’s stance. Speaking on Fox News’ America Reports, Yoo suggested that the ruling might not carry the implications that Pritzker and others are assuming.
“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote.
Justice Alito Lets Loose, Calls SCOTUS Decision on Nat’l Guard in Chicago ‘Unwise’ and ‘Imprudent’
Of course, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker took a victory lap anyway:
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded the court’s decision in a statement, saying, “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”
As Joe Cunningham explained, Pritzker may have worn himself out unnecessarily because SCOTUS has not rendered the final ruling on this.
The Court emphasized that it was not issuing a final decision on whether or not the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard. It focuses on the emergency request before the Court while side-stepping the overall issue, which is not out of line with other recent rulings.
The Court made clear in its decision that it is not addressing the underlying constitutional questions, nor is it making a determination as to whether or not Trump’s orders were lawful. It also, notably, does not prevent future deployments.
With that in mind, John Yoo, attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under the George W. Bush administration, had a possibly different interpretation of this SCOTUS decision. Yoo appeared on Fox News’ America Reports and surmised that the decision may not mean what Pritzker and others think it means.
YOO: But the statute says, the President has to be unable to enforce the law with regular forces. What does regular forces mean? We don’t know, the Supreme Court has never decided this question before yesterday. The Supreme Court now says, regular forces means you have to try with the regular armed forces first before you bring out the National Guard.
Oops. Yoo even set out a precedent from a past president on how this could play out.
So, the unintended consequence here might be that the president is going to have to call the 82nd Airborne, or the Marines, or the 101st Airborne Division as for example President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education in the South to enforce desegregation. President Trump might have to do that first in order to protect those federal buildings, those ICE agents. And then if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard.
WATCH:
🚨 LMAO! The Democrat lawfare against President Trump may now BACKFIRE, resulting in MARINES being sent into Chicago instead of National Guard
SCOTUS said “regular forces” must be used before the Guard
MARINES are “regular forces”
JB Pritzker messed up🤣pic.twitter.com/jflO8dAauM
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 24, 2025
As Cunningham noted above, the SCOTUS decision is not on the merits, so this is not the final word on the issue, particularly in light of Alito’s dissent noted above, the dissent of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and the concurring opinion of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, Yoo thinks SCOTUS could be giving President Trump an opening.
YOO: Second, and I think, more worrisome, the Supreme Court is essentially inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops and deploy those to Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send the National Guard. I think a governor would rather have National Guard troops than the 82nd Airborne and the Marine Corps patrolling the streets of Chicago.
One could naturally come to that conclusion, but JB Pritzker only cares about what will polish his presidential bona fides. Just as he is more than willing to see unrest and innocents die from the violence in Chicago and the ICE protests, he could be salivating at the mouth to see Trump direct more U.S. military to roll into the state just to give credence to his blather about “abuse of power” and “authoritarianism.”
While Trump may be within his rights as head of the executive branch, he also doesn’t need to give a cretin like Pritzker any more fodder for his propaganda crusades or his probable 2028 presidential campaign.
Editor’s Note: We voted for mass deportations, not mass amnesty. Help us continue to fight back against those trying to go against the will of the American people.
