President Donald Trump’s latest bid to secure Chicago with the National Guard just hit a brick wall at the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling on a recent Tuesday, the high court temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to deploy about 300 National Guard members to protect federal personnel in Chicago, upholding lower court decisions that found the administration failed to meet the legal threshold for such action.

For hardworking taxpayers in Illinois, this decision could mean footing the bill for ongoing unrest, with potential costs piling up from property damage and strained local law enforcement resources if protests targeting ICE officers escalate unchecked.

Legal Battle Over Federal Authority Unfolds

The saga began when Trump invoked a seldom-used federal law to federalize National Guard troops, arguing that protesters in Chicago were assaulting and threatening ICE personnel.

The administration pointed fingers at Illinois’ Democratic leaders, claiming they’ve turned a blind eye to the chaos, leaving federal officers vulnerable.

Illinois, however, pushed back hard, filing a lawsuit to stop the deployment, asserting that local law enforcement had the situation under control and that the move infringed on state sovereignty.

Supreme Court Majority Draws the Line

The Supreme Court’s majority, in an unsigned order, clarified that “regular forces” meant the U.S. military, not civilian agencies like ICE, and Trump hadn’t justified using the military domestically before tapping the Guard.

They also raised concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act, warning that using the Guard to enforce laws could cross into forbidden territory—essentially turning soldiers into a domestic police force without congressional approval.

Illinois doubled down, arguing, “The planned deployment would infringe on Illinois’s sovereign interests in regulating and overseeing its own law enforcement activities,” as stated by state attorneys.

Alito’s Fiery Dissent Sparks Debate

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, didn’t hold back, blasting the majority’s ruling as “unwise” and “imprudent” in a sharp dissent.

Alito argued, “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.”

Let’s unpack that—Alito’s got a point: if federal agents are dodging bricks and threats, shouldn’t safety trump state pride, even if you squint at ICE’s methods?

Broader Implications for Trump’s Strategy

Meanwhile, Trump’s broader push to deploy the Guard in cities like Portland and parts of California has hit similar legal roadblocks, with Chicago’s case leading the pack in the courts.

Illinois claims most ICE protests are peaceful, but the Department of Homeland Security isn’t buying it, criticizing Governor J.B. Pritzker for dragging his feet during chaotic anti-ICE unrest in Broadview.

So, while progressive leaders pat themselves on the back for “resisting,” federal officers remain in the crosshairs—hardly a win for law and order, and a risky precedent for communities craving stability over political posturing.