155 F.4th 929
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
State of ILLINOIS and the City of Chicago, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 25-2798
|
Decided October 16, 2025

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:25-cv-12174 — April M. Perry, Judge.
.
Before Rovner, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
Opinion

Per Curiam.

*933 On October 4, 2025, President Donald Trump invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and deploy members of the National Guard within Illinois, over the objection of the state’s Governor. He asserted that deploying the Guard in the state was necessary to quell violent assaults against federal immigration agents and property. The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago promptly sued President Trump and members of his administration, arguing that none of the statutory predicates for federalizing the Guard under § 12406 had been met, and that the federalization also violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385.
 
The district court granted plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the administration from federalizing and deploying the Guard within Illinois. In the district court’s view of the factual record, neither of the predicate conditions for federalization proffered by the administration was present in Illinois: There was insufficient evidence of rebellion or a danger of a rebellion, 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2), nor was there sufficient evidence that the President was unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, see id. § 12406(3). The administration immediately appealed and moved for a stay of the order pending appeal.
 
Because we conclude that the district court’s factual findings at this preliminary stage were not clearly erroneous, and that the facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois under § 12406, even giving substantial deference to his assertions, we deny the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal except to the extent we continue our stay of the portion of the order enjoining the federalization of the Guard.

I 
A [facts-omitted]
 B
On October 6, 2025, plaintiffs—the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago—filed this lawsuit, arguing that the Trump administration’s orders federalizing National Guard troops in Illinois under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were unlawful. 10 U.S.C. § 12406 provides:
Whenever—
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.
 
Plaintiffs argued that there is no rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois, nor is the President unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. They further contended that the federalization orders violate the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, and the Tenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive relief preventing the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops in Illinois.
 
After holding a hearing and assessing the preliminary record, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and enjoined the federalization and deployment of the National *936 Guard for 14 days. The court withheld judgment on a preliminary injunction and did not extend its order to non–National Guard military forces or the President himself. The district court recognized the substantial deference due a President’s assessment of whether § 12406(2) or (3)’s factual predicates are satisfied, but it concluded nonetheless that, under its factual findings, the statutory requirements were not met. Where the declarations of the administration conflicted with the declarations of state and local law enforcement concerning conditions on the ground, the court made a credibility determination in plaintiffs’ favor. In particular, the court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence.
 
The Trump administration promptly appealed. It also moved for a stay pending appeal and for an emergency administrative stay. We granted the motion for an administrative stay in part, allowing the Guard members in Illinois to remain under federal control but blocking their deployment while we considered the motion for a stay.
 
II   [omitted]B
[11] [12]Where neither the President nor the district court is entitled to deference is on the meaning of the statute—what constitutes a “rebellion,” and what it means to be “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406. These determinations are matters of statutory interpretation, a function that is “precisely the business of the judiciary.” Seggerman Farms, Inc. v. Comm’r, 308 F.3d 803, 806 (7th Cir. 2002); see generally Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 219 L.Ed.2d 832 (2024). Our interpretation of the statute is de novo even on a motion for a stay. See Tully, 977 F.3d at 612.
 
At this stage, we cannot say the administration is likely to succeed in demonstrating that the President lawfully federalized the Guard under either § 12406(2) or § 12406(3).†
 
 …

[14]We turn next to the meaning of § 12406(3)—“unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The administration exhorts us to accept the Ninth Circuit’s reading of this subsection. In Newsom, the Ninth Circuit interpreted “unable” to mean that the federal government was “significantly impeded,” and “regular forces” to mean “federal officers.” 141 F.4th at 1052. The district court in this case, by contrast, concluded that the definition of “unable” is “not having sufficient power or ability; being incapable.” And it determined that “regular forces” means the soldiers and officers serving in the regular armed forces.
 
We need not fully resolve these thorny and complex issues of statutory interpretation now, because we conclude that the administration has not met its burden under either standard. Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts, under the facts as found by the district court, there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws. Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And *940 though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities. At the same time, immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace in Illinois over the past year, and the administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area. The administration accordingly is also unlikely to succeed on this argument.
 
…C
[17]Having concluded that the administration has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits at this early stage, we evaluate the remaining stay factors, which we conclude also weigh against a stay of the district court’s order with respect to deployment. We recognize, as the Ninth Circuit did, that the federal government has a strong interest in the protection of its agents and property. Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1054. But given the district court’s well-supported view of the record, the federal government has been able to protect federal property and personnel without the National Guard’s help. By contrast, the administration’s likely violation of Illinois’s Tenth Amendment rights by deploying Guard troops in the state over the state’s objection “constitutes proof of an irreparable harm.” Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n.3 (7th Cir. 1978). And the deployment of National Guard members from Texas—an incursion on Illinois’s sovereignty—makes the constitutional injury especially significant. The balance of harms thus weighs in plaintiffs’ favor regarding the deployment of the Guard.
 
[18] [19]On the other hand, we conclude that the harm to plaintiffs of permitting Guard troops to remain temporarily under federal control, without deploying, as this case further progresses appears to be relatively minimal. (We acknowledge, however, that circumstances might arise that could increase plaintiffs’ potential harm, including if Illinois needs its Guard members who have been commandeered by the federal government to assist with state matters.) Lastly, as the district court properly determined, the public has a significant interest in having only well-trained law enforcement officers deployed in their communities and avoiding unnecessary shows of military force in their neighborhoods, except when absolutely necessary and justified by law.
 
IV
We reiterate that, because of the procedural posture of this appeal, our conclusions *941 are preliminary and based on our review of the limited record before the district court. The issues presented are necessarily fact bound, and it is possible that events could transpire that satisfy one of § 12406’s factual predicates. But even with the benefit of considerable deference to its judgments, the administration has not shown that is true today.
 
Because we conclude that the factors weigh against a stay of the deployment order pending appeal, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay pending appeal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. We continue to STAY the district court’s October 9, 2025, order only to the extent it enjoined the federalization of the National Guard within the state. The administration remains barred from deploying the National Guard of the United States within Illinois.

Footnote [omitted]

End of Document
	© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.