Flickr"
/>
In my experience, American presidents—Republican and Democrat alike—learn to love their wars and quickly come to expect near-unanimous support from the American people. Their impatience increases when that is not the case, and their annoyance grows with dissent. President Dwight Eisenhower trusted and relied on the bad advice of the Dulles brothers and allowed the CIA to mastermind the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, a blunder that led to the vicious Shah, his subsequent dictatorship, and decades of Iranian distrust. President John F. Kennedy’s own arrogance and his faith in the delusional “best and brightest” led to the quagmire of Vietnam. Lyndon followed him with ever more American interference in Southeast Asia and earned the chants he just could not bear: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Nixon, just as stubborn, was ultimately undone by unrelenting public dissent. As for Reagon, let’s not forget Iran/Contra. Of course, Latin and South America, from Batista to Samosa and the Maryknoll nuns and the assassination of Allende in Chile, have often demonstrated the fallacies of America supremacy. On and on through Afghanistan and Iraq.
Such is the overwhelming power of the executive that such supremacy so often blinds the wager of war to what is really happening on the battlefield and with/to the American people for whom the war is supposedly being fought.
Donald Trump, as his mental and physical powers seem to be diminishing, is waging wars at home and abroad, blasting boats out of international waters and forcibly wrenching those without proper papers from their American communities and evicting them.
Clearly, Trump has not read Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” or paid attention to the madness Coppola portrayed in “Apocalypse Now.” So, I am not sure the president picked the best way to trumpet his excitement about his plan to wage war on American soil:
As NBC News in Chicago reports:
President Donald Trump on Saturday indicated deportations would occur in Chicago during enhanced immigration enforcement operations slated to begin this weekend.
Trump posted a parody meme referencing the 1979 film ‘Apocalypse Now’ on the social media platform Truth Social, saying, ‘I love the smell of deportations in the morning … Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.’
The dramatic meme shows Trump in front of the Chicago skyline with helicopters above, along with flames and a cloud of smoke. The president’s post referenced the ‘Department of War,’ which was approved as a secondary title to the Department of Defense under an executive order he signed Friday.
Ramped-up federal immigration enforcement efforts were expected in Chicago as early as this weekend, with operations based at Naval Station Great Lakes in suburban North Chicago.
His June 7, 2025, executive order made clear his intentions:
And he released this exaggerated list of dangers he hoped would justify his war at home:
Unfortunately, history is no longer the strong point it once was for many of us. So, I am guessing few remember the chilling refrain: “Where are your papers?” And for those who have not seen a movie about the Nazis in a while, it is all too easy to live a life insulated from the reality that thousands are being disappeared from their jobs, their families, and their communities. Unless we work with, are friends with, or live close to those folks who have managed to secure their papers and those many who are without them, we do not notice when they are plucked from their cars, dragged from where they work, seized while dropping off or picking up their kids from school, or arrested even when appearing at a scheduled court hearing for their asylum claim. A very small percentage of us have witnessed when they are handcuffed and stuffed into ICE vehicles and disappeared from sight. Which means they will not be working the next day at that dairy farm, the meatpacking plant, on that construction site, cooking breakfast at your neighborhood diner, or washing dishes behind the scenes at that swanky restaurant you treat yourself to.
And so, if you do not know what is really happening, if you are not aware of Operation Midway Blitz, you probably cannot really appreciate the deep trauma the immigrant community is experiencing. The fear that at any moment, a masked ICE agent, completely convinced he/she is on a righteous mission, told he/she does not really need a judicial warrant or, for that matter, to identify themselves, can with several other agents grab you off the street, restrain you, handcuff you, and, without any need to explain or justify, take you away from the life you have been living and deposit you in an ICE detention center.
From the very beginning, the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois have made clear their opposition to federal agents policing their communities. And federal action has inspired two different lawsuits. The first: State of Illinois and The City of Chicago v. Donald Trump and the second by journalists and clergy in response to the violent responses of ICE and Border Patrol agents to peaceful protests.
Judge Perry, assigned to the first case, was faced with two remarkably different versions of the reality on the ground. I urge you take some time to read her compelling legal analysis. But in the meantime, I am going to summarize. She acknowledged the government and the state and Chicago had vastly different ideas of what was happening on the ground, specifically at the Broadview ICE Detention Center:
On October 4, there were approximately thirty protestors at the ICE Processing Center … According to DHS’s representative at the ICE Processing Center, local law enforcement arrived within five to ten minutes, immediately pushed the protestors back to the designated protest areas, and controlled the scene … DHS did not have to intervene with any protestors … Despite this, on the same day, the President issued a memorandum stating that the ‘situation in the State of Illinois, particularly in and around the city of Chicago, cannot continue. Federal facilities in Illinois, including those directly supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Protective Services (FPS), have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing Federal law enforcement activities … I have determined that these incidents, as well as the credible threat of continued violence, impede the execution of the laws of the United States. I have further determined that the regular forces of the United States are not sufficient to ensure the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, including in Chicago’ … This memorandum authorized the federalization of Illinois National Guard members under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Id. at 17. It further authorized those personnel to ‘perform those protective activities that the Secretary of War determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the execution of Federal law in Illinois, and to protect Federal property in Illinois.’ Id.
[Emphasis added.]
She continues:
Defendants report significantly more violence in the Chicago area than the Broadview Police or ISP … Some of what these declarants complain about is, while aggravating, insulting, or unpleasant, also Constitutionally protected …There is no evidence within the declarations that, to the extent there have been acts of violence, those acts of violence have been linked to a common organization, group, or conspiracy. And with respect to Defendants’ declarants’ descriptions of the ICE Processing Center protests, the version of the facts set forth in these affidavits are impossible to align with the perspectives of state and local law enforcement presented by Plaintiffs.
The Court therefore must make a credibility assessment as to which version of the facts should be believed. While the Court does not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable …
Plaintiffs contend that the deployment of the Illinois and Texas National Guard comes not from any good faith concern about the ability of federal law enforcement to do their jobs unimpeded, but rather from President Trump’s animus for Illinois’s elected officials. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs attach social media posts by President Trump attacking Illinois Governor JB Pritzker as ‘weak,’ ‘pathetic,’ ‘incompetent,’ and ‘crazy.’ … Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that President Trump strongly disagrees with various policy decisions by Illinois officials, including ‘sanctuary’ policies in Illinois and the City of Chicago that limit the cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities … Plaintiffs have also presented evidence demonstrating President Trump’s longstanding belief that crime in Chicago is out of control, and that federal agents should be used to stop that crime …
Especially at issue is the scope of 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the statutory predicate for the current National Guard deployment in Illinois. Because there is not an abundance of case law interpreting Section 12406, the Court begins with some historical background … During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one topic of hot debate among the Founders was how to properly scope the federal government’s military powers. Indeed, among the grievances directed against King George III by signatories to the Declaration of Independence was his keeping ‘in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.’ Decl. of Independence para. 13 (U.S. 1776). Thus, while the Founders recognized that well-trained soldiers were necessary ‘for providing for the common defense’ of our young nation, they were concerned ‘that a national standing Army posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate states.’ …
Another concern among some Founders was the extent of the federal government’s powers to deploy federal military forces—including federalized militia—for purposes of general law enforcement. For instance, in response to a proposal to add language to the Constitution which would empower the federal government to ‘call forth the force of the Union’ against states that passed laws contravening those of the union, James Madison moved successfully for its removal, opining that such use of force against a state ‘would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment.’ …
Regarding the militia, the Founders chose to vest Congress—not the President—with constitutional power ‘to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,’ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15 (the ‘Calling Forth Clause’), as well as to provide for the ‘organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 16. …
The final piece of our historical puzzle is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which Defendants represent supplies the authority for the deployment of federalized National Guard troops into Illinois. In its current incarnation, it 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 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 invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute those laws. 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
… Before turning to the meaning of Section 12406’s subsections, a note on deference: Defendants are not entitled to ‘deference’ on the issue of what constitutes a rebellion for the purposes of the Act, nor what it means to be ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.’ Those are matters of statutory interpretation, a function committed to the courts …
Defendants are, however, entitled to a certain amount of deference on the question of whether the facts constitute the predicates laid out in Section 12406 … Still, Defendants must support their position by pointing the Court to some of the facts upon which it bases its conclusions and by offering explanations which paint a substantially reasonable picture justifying the Executive’s position … And in all of the memoranda actually deploying the National Guard to Illinois, the Court does not see any factual determination by President Trump regarding a rebellion brewing here … the Court cannot find reasonable support for a conclusion that there exists in Illinois a danger of rebellion satisfying the demands of Section 12406(2) …
Turning to Section 12406(3), the parties dispute both its meaning and whether its conditions have been met … Altogether then, the phrase ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ means that in order for the President to call forth the militia to execute the laws, the President must be incapable with the regular forces—that is, lacking the power and force with the military alone—to execute the laws.
Here, Defendants have made no attempt to rely on the regular forces before resorting to federalization of the National Guard, nor do Defendants argue (nor is there any evidence to suggest) that the President is incapable with the regular forces of executing the laws. Therefore, the statutory predicate contained within Section 12406(3) has not been met on that basis alone …
As discussed, the Tenth Amendment provides that ‘powers not by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved delegated to the United States to the States respectively, or to the people.’ U.S. Const., Tenth Am. These reserved and residuary powers include, among other things, ‘the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States.’ United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S 598, 617-18 (2000) …
In addition to showing a likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs must also show that ‘irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.’ … Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated at least two types of irreparable harm … First, as is discussed above, the Court concludes that Defendants’ actions likely violate the Tenth Amendment, and ‘[t]he existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm.’ … Second, the Court finds that deployment of National Guard members is likely to lead to civil unrest, requiring deployment of state and local resources to maintain order. There has been overwhelming evidence presented that the provocative nature of ICE’s enforcement activity has caused a significant increase in protest activity, requiring the Broadview Police, ISP, and other state and local law enforcement agencies to respond … State and local police have indicated that they are ready, willing, and able to keep the peace as ICE continues its operations in Chicago …To add to this milieu militarized actors unfamiliar with local history and context whose goal is’ vigorous enforcement’ of the law, Doc. 62 at 34, is not in the community’s interest … For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO.
[Emphasis added.]
While Judge Perry supported the state and city’s contention that President Trump’s call for federal troops was overreach, the people, unfortunately, were living with the consequences of the escalation of ICE’s attempt to round up as many “illegal aliens” as possible. Even without his federal troops, Donald Trump has indeed brought war to Chicago and its environs. And his ICE and Border Patrol agents were rounding up those they suspected and those who were appalled by their behavior. Here is Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino:
They write:
Local and national press have continuously covered the federal law enforcement deployment to Chicago and the Broadview ICE facility … Federal agents have responded with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians. Dressed in full combat gear, often masked, carrying weapons, bearing flash grenades and tear gas canisters, and marching in formation, federal agents have repeatedly advanced upon those present at the scene who posed no imminent threat to law enforcement. Snipers with guns loaded with pepper balls, paintballs, and rubber bullets are stationed on the roof of the Broadview ICE facility with their weapons trained on the press and civilians. Federal agents have tackled and slammed people to the ground; they have lobbed flash grenades and tear gas canisters indiscriminately into the crowd; they have fired rubber bullets and pepper balls at selected individuals; and they have cursed and shouted at demonstrators to provoke them.
[Emphasis added.]
Most people have not heard the testimony of these religious leaders in Chicago whose attempts to provide witness have been met with violence. Here are excerpts from the “Declaration of David Black,” a Presbyterian minister:
I am an ordained minister in The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA … For the past nine years, I have worked as a minister in various parish and chaplaincy settings. I am currently the Senior Pastor and Head of Staff at The First Presbyterian Church of Chicago, located in the Woodlawn neighborhood of South Side Chicago.
With the arrival in the Chicago area of many additional officers employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), I felt called and compelled by my Christian faith to come to the area around the Broadview ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois to minister to the ICE officers there and to urge them to repent and turn away from unnecessary and brutal enforcement of the immigration laws … Each time at Broadview, I was visibly attired in clerical garb: a black shirt with a white clerical collar and black slacks. My consistent and explicit orientation has been as a Christian minister, offering prayers, blessings and imprecations from scripture, calling ICE officers to repent and believe the Good News, leading the gathering in singing traditional hymns and Christian spirituals, and offering spiritual support and consolation to those gathered in protest …
I returned to the Broadview ICE facility on September 19 at about 7 p.m. I was with a group of about 50 to 100 protesters, including other clergy, on the street in front of the ICE facility. I stood on the sidewalk in front of the facility fence. A group of ICE officers were stationed on the roof of the facility above me. Those officers were all masked and were dressed in military-style fatigues. They carried guns. I extended my arms, palms outstretched toward the ICE officers, in a traditional Christian posture of prayer and blessing. I do not remember the words that I used, but in substance I urged the ICE officers to repent and to believe the Good News that the Kingdom of God is near as I remained in a posture of prayer.
Without any warning, and without any order or request that I and others disperse, I was suddenly fired upon by ICE officers. In rapid fire, I was hit seven times on my arms, face and torso with exploding pellets that contained some kind of chemical agent. It was clear to me that the officers were aiming for my head, which they struck twice. One of the pellets that hit me on the head caused me to collapse to my knees. Others who were there gathered around me formed a human shield to protect me as the ICE officers continued to fire on our huddle …
After I was hit, a friend began to help me wash out my eyes. But almost immediately, a group of ICE agents stormed out of the ICE facility toward me and the other protesters. On the street in front of the facility, they targeted the people who were down, including me, pushing and shoving us toward a driveway across from the facility and trapping about a dozen of us in a kettling maneuver. They were armed and brandishing their weapons, and I feared for my life and the lives of other protesters in the kettle. The ICE officers deployed canisters of chemical weapons indiscriminately. One officer shoved me and sprayed chemicals directly on me, aiming for my head and dousing my face. While I was attempting to escape the kettle, officers kept shoving me and spraying the back of my head. By the time I had gotten away, the agents had soaked me in liquid chemicals from my head to my toes. I was wearing a heavy denim jacket, shirt and undershirt, heavy denim jeans, and long underwear. The amount of chemical spray deployed was such that it penetrated through all these layers and covered every part of my body. The photograph below shows this occurring:
[Emphasis added.]
The declaration continues:
I fear that, should I protest, pray, and minister at Broadview, I will be met with violent retaliation. Given the unprovoked escalations of ICE agents against me and other peaceful protesters, I also fear that their supervising officers will not deter them from using deadly force against protesters. The memory of what happened to me sometimes provokes a physical reaction. Nonetheless, my faith strongly calls me to return, even in the face of my fear …
In fact, local religious leaders have been leading peaceful demonstrations every week at the ICE Broadview Detention Center for decades. Here are excerpts from the “Declaration of Father Brendan Curran, OP“:
I am a Catholic priest with the with Dominican Friars with the Province of St. Albert the Great, USA. I am the North American Dominican promoter for justice and peace …
I was one of the original Catholic priests that started the Friday prayer vigils at Broadview Detention Center almost 19 years ago. I have been regularly attending the Friday prayer vigil since it began.
At the vigils, I, along with other Catholic priests, sisters and brothers, other religious clergy and lay people, gather to pray the rosary and pray for the people who are detained in that facility, their families and the people that work there, including agents employed by the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency, known as ICE.
I have attended the Friday prayer vigils at Broadview Detention Center as an expression of my Christian faith and its tenet that I am called to welcome my brother and sisters who are immigrants.
That tenet of my faith is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, who was also a refugee when he fled to Egypt. For example, the Book of Matthew, Chapter 25, which states, in part: ‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me.’
In the past, after the vigil, two of the vigil participants, were permitted to board the bus and pray with immigrants who were being transported to O’Hare Airport and/or across the border to offer prayer, support and communicate resources they could use once they were deported.
[Emphasis added.]
But all that changed with the Trump administration’s decision to focus its energies on deporting one million “illegal aliens” this year. Father Brendan Curran continues:
And here are excerpts from the “Declaration of Beth Johnson“:
I am an ordained minister in the Unitarian Universality Church … I currently work as a minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Hinsdale.
With the arrival in the Chicago area of many additional officers employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’), I felt called by my faith to come to the area around the Broadview ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois to protest the unnecessary and brutal enforcement of the immigration laws and minister to the people there …
On each of those three occasions, I have been standing outside the Broadview ICE facility wearing my religious collar and sometimes also my stole … I have always been on public grounds like the street, sidewalk, or grass next to the sidewalk.
On September 5, 2025, when I was at Broadview I was praying and sitting with people praying the rosary. ICE agents were there. I could recognize them based on their uniforms. Later after the prayer vigil was finished, ICE deployed some pepper balls against the people gathered. ICE was not as aggressive on September 5 as they would later become.
“On September 19, 2025, I was present on the street and sidewalk outside 1930 Beach St. I was wearing my collar. I was praying and singing with other clergy.
Suddenly there was a big escalation in the use of force by the ICE officers. There were ICE agents on the roof of the building launching pepper balls. We were not told to move before they began launching pepper balls.
I have severe asthma and had to move away from the building because of the chemical weapons. I had to leave to rinse out my eyes. My breathing continued to be effected even after I left.
On September 26, 2025 I was at Broadview on the Harvard Ave. side. I was on the sidewalk, street, and grass. I was wearing my collar … We were standing around singing, praying, and chanting.
The ICE agents were dressed in their same uniforms as before and they further escalated their violence. They would intermittently use chemical weapons or rubber bullets. We did not do anything to provoke these attacks and there was no warning. We were just standing around singing and praying and they would deploy weapons against us …
As a person of faith, I feel called to be in solidarity with the individuals in the ICE facility and to live my faith commitments. I want to continue to express my faith at the Broadview ICE facility, even if there is a risk of being continually tear-gassed and hit with rubber bullets.
Judge Sara Ellis quickly held hearings and on October 9, 2025, and issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as ‘Federal Agents’), are temporarily ENJOINED in this judicial district from:
a. Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime. Defendants may order a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement …
The order enjoined federal agents from:
b. Issuing a crowd dispersal order requiring any person to leave a public place that they lawfully have a right to be, unless dispersal is justified by exigent circumstances …
c. For purposes of this Order, a crowd dispersal order is a lawful command given by a Federal Agent for all persons to leave a designated area when three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct that are likely to cause substantial harm in the immediate vicinity.
d. Using riot control weapons––including kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs), Compressed Air Launchers (e.g., PLS and FN303), Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray, CS gas, CN gas, or other chemical irritants, 40 mm Munitions Launchers, less-lethal shotguns, Less-Lethal Specialty Impact-Chemical Munitions (LLSI-CM), Controlled Noise and Light Distraction Devices (CNLDDs), Electronic Control Weapons (ECWs)––on members of the press, protesters, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others;
e. Using riot control weapons (including those described above) at identified targets, if it is reasonably foreseeable that doing so could result in injury to the press, protesters, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others, unless such force is necessary to stop an immediate and serious threat of physical harm to a person …
h. Using force, such as pulling or shoving a person to the ground, tackling, or body slamming an individual who poses no immediate threat of physical harm to others, unless necessary and proportional to effectuate an apprehension and arrest …
j. Seizing or arresting any non-violent protester who is not resisting a lawful crowd dispersal order, unless there is specific probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime for which a custodial arrest is warranted and for which the law enforcement officer has lawful authority to make an arrest; and …
2. It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, must have visible identification (for which a unique recognizable alphanumeric identifier sequence will suffice) affixed to their uniforms or helmets and prominently displayed, including when wearing riot gear.
[Emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, federal agents continued to inflict violence on both suspects and community members who attempted to document their activities. According to CWBChicago, on October 28, 2025:
Attorneys representing Chicago media outlets and other plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit over alleged excessive force by immigration agents say the government’s officers have violated a judge’s restraining order during recent enforcement operations …
According to the plaintiffs’ latest filing, Bovino has disregarded Ellis’ authority and the limits she imposed on federal agents’ use of force. The notice filed Sunday includes a description of an incident in Little Village last Thursday that lawyers say directly violated Ellis’ temporary restraining order.
‘Defendant Bovino appeared to exhibit disregard for the Court’s order limiting federal agents’ use of force, including crowd-control devices,’ the filing said. Attorneys allege video footage shows Bovino tossing what appeared to be a tear gas canister toward bystanders without warning, even though ‘the crowd was not being violent or committing any crimes.’ They say Bovino then threw a second canister moments later while another agent fired one into the crowd ‘at head level.’
CWBChicago continues:
The Department of Homeland Security released its own account of the incident on Twitter, describing the scene as a violent confrontation between agents and ‘a large crowd of 75 to 100 rioters.’
DHS said the crowd ‘surrounded’ officers near 27th Street and Whipple Avenue, fired commercial fireworks, and hurled objects, including a rock that allegedly struck Bovino in the head.
‘Riot control measures were deployed, including by Chief Bovino … The use of chemical munitions was conducted in full accordance with CBP policy and was necessary to ensure the safety of both law enforcement and the public.’
According to CWBChicago:
Attorneys for the plaintiffs flatly disputed the government’s account, calling the DHS statement ‘a lie.’ Their filing asserts that multiple witnesses and video recordings show the crowd was peaceful and that agents gave no warnings or dispersal orders before deploying gas. They also said they have found no evidence that anyone fired commercial fireworks, as the government claimed.
Bovino appeared Tuesday for a tense hearing before U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in downtown Chicago. She questioned him about reports of aggressive immigration enforcement and the federal agents’ treatment of protesters, journalists and even children during the ongoing ‘immigration blitz’ …
’They don’t have to like what you’re doing. And that’s OK. That’s what democracy is,’ Ellis said during the hearing, referring to protesters or others who might be voicing opposition to federal agents on the ground. ‘They can say they don’t like what you’re doing, that they don’t like how you’re enforcing the laws, that they wish you would leave Chicago and take the agents with you. They can say that, and that’s fine. But they can’t get teargassed for it.’
While Bovino’s immigration enforcement efforts came under scrutiny Tuesday, President Donald Trump threatened to send ‘more than the National Guard’ to combat crime in blue cities like Chicago.
In addition to having Bovino appear before her with daily reports, Judge Ellis ruled that he provide records of the times agents resorted to using force and the corresponding body camera video of those events, going back to the onset of their operation on September 2.
The DOJ immediately appealed and the Appeals Court granted a stay, suspending Bovino’s daily need to report in person but allowing Judge Ellis’ demand for incident reports and body camera video to remain.
Then, most importantly, the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming:
This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.
That resistance succeeds to an alarming degree in its aim of obstructing federal agents from enforcing federal immigration law. Federal agents are forced to desperately scramble to protect themselves and federal property, allocating resources away from their law-enforcement mission to conduct protective operations instead. Receiving tepid support from local forces, they are often left to fend for themselves in the face of violent, hostile mobs. Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence.
In response, Justice Barrett referred the appeal to the full Court, asking for briefs on the issue she felt was most paramount, the meaning of “regular forces”:
On October 29, 2025, The Washington Post reported:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Trump administration and Illinois officials for additional briefs on their dispute over whether President Donald Trump can send troops to Chicago, pushing a decision on the matter into mid-November at the earliest.
The request means that Trump’s proposed troop deployment, which was initially halted by a federal judge on Oct. 9, would remain blocked for more than a month … The court asked for the briefs to be submitted by Nov. 17, which means any decision would come sometime after.
Meanwhile, local citizens continue to capture what is happening in their communities. Here are two still frames of excerpts from a TikTok video showing two masked ICE agents, smashing the side windows of a pickup truck to grab a suspect and force him into their unmarked vehicle:
Then his subsequent arrest. How much different would it be if ordinary criminals dressed in similar gear staged an abduction?
I, for one, am extremely worried about how Justice Barrett has framed the critical issue of Donald Trump’s war on Chicago. In contrast, Judge Ellis impressively analyzed the key components of the case: Did events on the ground in Chicago truly warrant federal intervention? Was there consistent violence serious enough to prevent ICE and Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs? Was there any activity that truly entitled the government to consider this an invasion or a rebellion? Did, in fact, the presence of government agents make things worse? And was the president able with the regular forces he commands, in fact, to execute the laws of the land?
I worry that Barrett and MAGA will not see reality as it is actually experienced by the ordinary men and women living in these communities—including the two judges who have already considered the issues at hand—but from the perspective, instead, of the executive. I worry they will look to find any evidence at all that will allow them to justify him waging his war at home. If that proves to be the case, we will be one step closer to losing our liberty.
