Skip to main content

Judge refuses to restrain Trump

 Recent Judicial Ruling on National Guard Deployment to Chicago

No, a federal judge did not give President Trump a "green light" to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago or anywhere else in a broad, unrestricted sense. Instead, on October 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry (a Biden appointee) in the Northern District of Illinois declined to issue an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area. This allows the troops to proceed in the short term while the court reviews the full case, with a hearing scheduled for Thursday, October 9, 2025. It's a procedural pause, not an endorsement of the legality. Key Details of the Chicago Case
  • Background: The Trump administration federalized about 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and authorized up to 400 from Texas (with Gov. Greg Abbott's support) to deploy to Chicago. The stated purpose is to "protect federal officers and assets" amid protests over the administration's escalated immigration enforcement and deportations, including incidents like a shooting involving Border Patrol agents on October 4, 2025. Chicago has seen small-scale demonstrations outside ICE facilities, but local crime stats show overall violent crime down 13% year-over-year, and murder rates down 29% through September.
  • Lawsuit: Filed October 6 by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D), the suit argues the deployment violates the 10th Amendment (state sovereignty), the Posse Comitatus Act (limits military in domestic law enforcement), and federal law on federalizing the Guard (requires a "rebellion" or invasion, which they claim doesn't exist). They called it an "unconstitutional invasion" and political theater.
  • Judge's Action: Perry expressed concern over the administration's vague responses but said she needed more time to review evidence. She ordered a DOJ response by midnight Wednesday and set a full hearing, effectively letting Texas troops (already in transit) arrive and Illinois Guard mobilize starting Tuesday. As of October 7, Texas Guard convoys have entered Illinois, prompting local warnings of "escalation and fear."
  • Trump's Response: The president has vowed to appeal any blocks and hinted at invoking the Insurrection Act (1807 law allowing military for domestic unrest without state consent) if courts continue intervening.
Broader Context: Not a Blank Check for Other CitiesThis ruling is narrow and temporary—specific to Chicago/Illinois—and contrasts with recent court setbacks for Trump elsewhere:
  • Portland, Oregon (October 5–6): U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut (Trump appointee) issued two TROs blocking federalization of the Oregon Guard and out-of-state troops (from California and Texas). She ruled protests were "largely sedate" (under 30 people, no rebellion), calling Trump's claims "untethered to the facts" and a violation of state sovereignty and Posse Comitatus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed it as a "win for the rule of law."
  • Los Angeles, California (September rulings): U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Trump's June deployment of 4,000 Guard and 700 Marines violated Posse Comitatus (troops performed crowd control/law enforcement). An appeals court in June allowed temporary continuation but didn't overturn the core illegality finding.
What's Next?
  • Chicago Hearing: Perry could still block or limit the deployment on Thursday if evidence shows no genuine threat. The administration must justify it under Title 10 (federalizing Guard for rebellion/invasion).
  • Pattern of Challenges: Trump's second-term push (troops to 10+ cities like Baltimore, Memphis, D.C., New Orleans) faces bipartisan judicial pushback, echoing his first-term Lafayette Square controversy. Critics (e.g., ACLU, Democratic governors) argue it's voter intimidation in blue areas; supporters say it's essential for federal protection amid "lawlessness."
  • Escalation Risks: Pritzker and Newsom have threatened to quit the National Governors Association over this. Trump could appeal to the 7th Circuit or Supreme Court, or use the Insurrection Act for broader authority.
This is a developing story with fast-moving legal and political angles. If you have more details or a specific city in mind, I can dig deeper!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tucker anti western propoganda

 Tucker's Qatar Claim: Fact-Checking the "Zero Rapes" MythTucker Carlson recently claimed on his podcast (August 2025) that Qatar has "zero rapes" under Sharia law, using it to argue that Islamic legal systems outperform Western democracies in maintaining order. During an interview with Seth Harp, he praised Sharia for low reported crime, low abortion rates, and no same-sex marriage—positioning it as a model for conservatives frustrated with American liberalism.This is propaganda wrapped in contrarianism—cherry-picked stats that ignore harsh realities. Here’s the breakdown:The Claim's Flaw: "Zero Rapes" Isn't Safety—It's SuppressionOfficial stats vs. reality: Qatar reports near-zero rapes because Sharia-based laws make reporting dangerous for victims. Rape requires four male Muslim witnesses (or a confession), or it's treated as zina (adultery/fornication). Women who report assault often face imprisonment, flogging, or worse for "e...
Post a Comment
Read more

Qatar Anti-Anerican funding

  Qatar's Spending Overview Qatar, a major Gulf state with significant oil and gas revenues, channels funds through government entities like the Qatar Fund for Development (QFFD), Qatar Foundation, and state-linked charities (e.g., Qatar Charity). These often support humanitarian, educational, and political goals but have drawn criticism for advancing Qatari foreign policy interests, including ties to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Below, I break down spending in the requested categories based on public reports, FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) filings, U.S. Department of Education disclosures, and analyses from think tanks like ISGAP and the Middle East Forum. Figures are approximate and cumulative where specified; recent years (2023–2025) show acceleration amid the Israel-Hamas conflict. 1. Funding to American Colleges Qatar is the largest foreign donor to U.S. higher education, primarily via the Qatar Foundation (a state-controlled entity) for branc...
Post a Comment
Read more

EU and X

 LEFT WING RESEARCHERS WANT TO LIMIT RIGHT WING DIALOGE! The EU's DSA requirement for researcher data access (Article 40) gives "vetted" researchers—typically academics or non-profits approved by national regulators—easier access to public X data like post engagement, views, and networks. The official goal is studying "systemic risks" (e.g., disinformation spread). Critics argue this can chill or deter honest/open dialogue in these ways:Broad and subjective labeling of "disinformation" or "harmful" speech: Researchers studying political topics can flag dissenting or unpopular views (e.g., on immigration, elections, gender issues, or COVID policies) as "misinformation" if they don't align with mainstream narratives, leading to reports that pressure platforms or governments to suppress them. Doxxing and harassment risks: Detailed data (e.g., who engages with controversial posts) can reveal user networks or identities, even if post...
Post a Comment
Read more