WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito criticized his colleagues’ Tuesday ruling temporarily blocking President Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago — calling it “unwise,” “imprudent” and “puzzling” in a scathing dissent.
The staunch conservative accused the six-justice majority of not giving enough deference to Trump, who said the deployment was needed to protect federal immigration officers sweeping the Windy City for illegal migrants as part of “Operation Midway Blitz.”
In a three-page unsigned ruling, the justices ruled that “[a]t this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
Justice Samuel Alito criticized the Supreme Court’s majority in a sharp dissent Tuesday after the high court decided to temporarily block President Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago. AP“[Trump] has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” which restricts the military from domestic law-enforcement operations, the majority added.
“Instead, he relies on inherent constitutional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property,” the justices went on.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s first-term nominees, wrote in a concurring opinion that “The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.”
Alito wasn’t having it, nor were Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who also dissented.
“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.
President Trump tried to invoke a rarely used federal law to federalize about 300 members of the National Guard and deploy them to protect federal personnel and buildings. REUTERS
“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. REUTERS
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker speaking on Nov. 11, 2025. REUTERS
Protesters marching against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Chicago with a banner reading “NO TRUMP NO TROOPS.” AFP via Getty Images“In this case, the Court has unnecessarily and unwisely departed from standard practice. It raised an argument that [Illinois] waived below, and it now rules in respondents’ favor on that ground.”
The lawsuit stemmed from Trump invoking a federal law to federalize about 300 National Guard members and deploy them to protect immigration enforcement personnel.
The Trump administration argued that anti-ICE activists were obstructing, assaulting, and threatening officers, and that Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson were unwilling to provide security.
“The Court seems to suggest,” Alito added, “that the Posse Comitatus Act… stands in the way of what the President did here, but that is puzzling. Does the Court mean to suggest that the Posse Comitatus Act somehow limited a President’s inherent constitutional authority?”
