Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan.
Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to decide in about a week an important constitutional question and a mammoth part of the Trump Administration’s agenda on illegal immigration. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzkin and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson won a District Court (trial level) injunction against Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard and/or other military to quell the riots and violent disorder in Chicago. Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, are in parallel circumstances. While not technically part of this case, Oregon and California have entered briefs and will be strongly guided by the High Court’s decision.
In what some observers call a growing civil war; Sanctuary States and cities have been directly interfering with Federal enforcement of immigration laws. See, Rep. Brad Knotts (R-NC), “Democrats Attacking Federal Law Enforcement Have Become the New Confederacy,” Breitbart, November 8, 2025. The Gateway Pundit reported: Christina Laila, “Latin Kings Leadership Authorizes ‘Shoot on Sight’ Order Toward Border Patrol Agents Involved in Chicago’s ‘Operation Midway Blitz’,” November 10, 2025.
While the Federal Government cannot force the States to implement Federal policies, neither can States interfere with Federal functions. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); United States v. Arizona, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). Mayor-Elect of New York City Zohran Mamdani sounds determined to cross that line.
However, Democrat party officials and activists have spread misinformation far and wide. As the American Rights Alliance (ARA) brief warns, false impressions are inflaming real violence. ARA urges the Supreme Court to not only rule clearly but also explain its ruling to calm the misunderstandings.
For example, if U.S. citizens interfere with police operations, they can be arrested under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and other statutes. Citizens who disrupt police activities are not immune. U.S. courts have ruled for two centuries that a warrant is not required when law enforcement witnesses a crime in front of them and especially when an offender might disappear. Neither bystanders nor offenders have a right to see a warrant. Bystanders demanding to see a warrant are practicing law without a license and disrupting police duties. Asking for a lawyer applies at the police station. Remaining silent does not negate what law enforcement witnessed. Resisting arrest is an additional crime. Perhaps surprising Leftists, throwing large rocks at moving law enforcement vehicles or crashing into them could lead to an arrest for attempted manslaughter or vehicular homicide.
While all the anti-deportation briefs claimed that using the National Guard or U.S. Military to protect Federal property has never happened before, the ARA brief powerfully presents the opposite:
The ARA Brief starts by reminding the Justices that their own order in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 was being defied by State officials, most notoriously in Little Rock, Arkansas.
“Democrat Party State and local officials refused to allow Black students to enter segregated public schools. The Arkansas National Guard was deployed by Governor Faubus to block Black students from attending white-designated schools. The President then federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne Division to escort those students past resisting State and local officials and a mob of citizens who were in rebellion against this U.S. Supreme Court. See, generally, Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797 (8th Cir. 1958); Cooper v. Aaron 1958, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, 3 L.Ed.2d 19 (1958).”
ARA dares Leftists to say that the use of the 101st Airborne Division to implement desegregation was wrong. That would be heresy among Democrats and an insult to the Supreme Court. The National Guard was similarly mobilized at the University of Mississippi, University of Alabama, and competing street protests at Selma, Alabama in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Also, the National Guard was federalized and called up in 1967, to patrol the so-called Detroit Riots and in 1968 the multi-city Riots upon the assassination of Martin Luther King.
In 1970, the New York Postal Strike resulted in Executive Order 11519 calling up 28,100 total Active and Reserve National Guard. In New York City, “more than 1,000 troops delivered mail in NYC’s financial district; the rest sorted mail and kept strikers from interfering with delivery.” “Federalizations of the Guard for Domestic Missions through 2025,” at the National Guard website.
In 1989, in the Virgin Islands, a hurricane resulted not only in devastation but “violence and looting in the wake of Hurricane Hugo. Virgin Islands reported 954 Army National Guard and 29 Air National Guard personnel mobilized for Fiscal Year 1989.” Id.
But the issue in this case is that the National Guard is being deployed to protect Federal personnel, assets, and function. Is this general law enforcement? ARA and the Trump briefs in the lower courts hit knock-out blows with the Memorandum of William Rehnquist, later Chief Justice. Disagreeing with Rehnquist will be very difficult for the Supreme Court.
While Assistant Attorney General, the Office of Legal Counsel, Rehnquist issued on April 29, 1971, “Memorandum Opinion For The Acting General Counsel Department Of The Army.”
In light of the announced purpose of the “Mayday Movement” to halt the functioning of the federal government by preventing federal employees from reaching their agencies, the question has arisen as to whether there is authority to use federal troops to insure access by federal employees to their agencies. The question involves the relationship between the inherent authority of the President to use troops to protect federal functions and the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, which prohibits the use of troops for law enforcement purposes “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”
It is the opinion of this Office that the Posse Comitatus Act does not prevent the use of troops to protect the functioning of the government by assuring the availability of federal employees to carry out their assigned duties and that troops may therefore be utilized to prevent traffic obstructions designed to prevent the access of employees to their agencies.
The ARA brief also emphasizes that President Trump has not asked the National Guard to do what the opponents imagine. It is not being asked to do general law enforcement. This could change, but they have not even been given the power of arrest. Their mission is to protect civilian law enforcement agents and help those do their job.
ARA’s brief is the only brief in the case that clearly separates the circumstances when State or local officials are unwilling to enforce the law as opposed to being unable to keep law and order. All of the parties skip over the fact that Sanctuary City jurisdictions are defying Federal law and refusing to allow deportation of illegal aliens. According to lawyers close to the case, this constitutes rebellion or insurrection and justifies use of the military where otherwise civilian law enforcement would be sufficient. That is, it does not matter if State and local officials are capable of keeping civil order if they refuse to do so. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson – a party in his official capacity in the lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court – admitted and confessed Chicago’s efforts to obstruct, defy, and rebel against Federal law. See, “Chicago mayor testifies before U.N. about Trump administration” (Excerpt), from Fox Channel 32, November 7, 2025. Furthermore, Mayor Johnson was appealing to the United Nations to overthrow U.S. law by imposing “international law” (which does not actually exist because there is no global government to create or enforce it). Thus, the statutes authorize use of the military where Chicago is unwilling to obey Federal law or keep the peace under the law.
The “Friend of the Court” (Latin: Amicus Curiae) brief from the American Rights Alliance best brings these issues home to ordinary followers of politics. The Trump Administration’s main brief is precise and powerful. The brief of America First Legal Foundation is also tightly legally focused. “Friend” briefs are not supposed to duplicate. So that left to ARA in this case the role of focusing on real-world history and factual circumstances.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court in Chicago in Record No. 25-2798. The Trump Administration filed an Application for a Stay on October 17, 2025. Justice Amy Comey Barrett ordered responses on a very tight turn-around October 20, 2025. On October 29, 2025, the Court took an unusual step of ordering additional briefing due on Monday, November 10, 2025. It is unlikely that the Court would issue any decision until the following week.
However, the highly specific question they asked suggests to lawyers close to the case that the High Court has already deeply digested the case and is close to a decision. Furthermore, hard-working Law Clerks and Justices got an additional 11 days to read all the briefs. Therefore, the Court could rule on this emergency petition within around two weeks.
PLEASE HELP AMERICAN RIGHTS ALLIANCE CONTINUE TO HELP “WE THE PEOPLE” CLICK HERE or visit AMERICANRIGHTSALLIANCE.ORG and become a single or monthly donor
The post Supreme Court Set To Decide If Trump Can Control Riots Against Ice Facilities Using National Guard appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.