Kat Lonsdorf

It was an unsigned opinion and it was really technical.

But basically, the court wrote that the president failed to explain why the situation in Chicago warranted an exception to what's called the Posse Comitatus Act.

That's a law that prohibits using the military for domestic law enforcement.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, writing that they, quote, strongly disagreed with the way the court handled this case.

They said the court should have remained focused on the narrow question in the administration's appeal, which they said was specifically around using troops to protect federal officers and facilities and not domestic law enforcement more generally.

Right.

So this case stems from back in September when President Trump federalized the National Guard against Illinois Governor J.B.

Pritzker's wishes and sent them into Chicago for what Trump said was protection of federal immigration officers and facilities.

Remember, Steve, this all happened as the administration launched a new and increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the city.

And there were protests.

But two lower courts blocked that deployment.

So in October, the administration issued an emergency appeal up to the Supreme Court.

Well, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson reiterated to NPR that the president activated the Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers and property.

And she said nothing in the ruling, quote, detracts from that core agenda.

But this was another in a recent series of legal setbacks for the administration against these deployments.

Governor Pritzker called it, quote, a big win for Illinois and American democracy.

I'll also note, Steve, minutes after the ruling, Louisiana's Governor Jeff Landry, who's a Republican, announced that he'll be sending hundreds of National Guard troops into New Orleans soon.

And this follows a pattern of Republican governors embracing these deployments like we've seen in Tennessee.

Well, because this is an emergency decision, it's not precedent setting, meaning it only applies to this specific case in Illinois at this specific time, not to the other deployments around the country.

But all of those are caught up in litigation now, and lower courts do tend to look, at least look at these emergency decisions for guidance.