A great weekend for meeting with residents and collecting petition signatures to get on the ballot for April 6!
I've collected 635 signatures, meeting the minimum required to get on the ballot. I'll keep going and turn in the maximum allowed.
Thank you to all my petition gathering volunteers!
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 25A443 _________________
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 23, 2025]
Federal immigration-enforcement efforts have encoun- tered significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago. According to the Government, federal officers have been obstructed, threatened, and assaulted as they at- tempt to perform their duties. The Government also alleges that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, has been the site of frequent and sometimes violent protests, damaging federal property and threatening the safety of federal officers. These at- tacks, the Government says, have greatly impeded its ef- forts to enforce the immigration laws.
On October 4, 2025, the President called 300 members of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, particu- larly in and around Chicago. The following day, members of the Texas National Guard were also federalized and sent to Chicago. In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406(3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois entered a temporary restraining order bar- ring the federalization and deployment of the Guard in Illi- nois. The Seventh Circuit denied in relevant part the Government’s motion for a stay, permitting the Guard to](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreigkgum5sfni47efippr7j6ykofa7anuo6cqpkfjztkzkfnvubdafe)
![remain federalized within Illinois but maintaining the bar on deployment.
The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court’s order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties’ initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term “regular forces” in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Govern- ment argues that the term refers to civilian law enforce- ment officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service. Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary.
We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States.” Because the statute requires an assess- ment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from “execut[ing] the laws” “except in cases and under circumstances ex- pressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” 18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the reg- ular military and must be “unable” with those forces to per- form that function.
At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not in- voked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreico7h4hdwfyr6byznbn2d7y2wuhraae6jhvupnyew5s7kwjegnpva)
![Comitatus Act. Instead, he relies on inherent constitu- tional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property. But the Government also claims—consistent with the longstanding view of the Executive Branch—that performing such protective functions does not constitute “execut[ing] the laws” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act. See Supp. Letter Reply Brief for Applicants 8; 1 Supp. Op. OLC 343, n. 1 (1971) (collecting sources). If that is correct, it is hard to see how performing those func- tions could constitute “execut[ing] the laws” under §12406(3). See Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. 566, 574 (2019) (“This Court does not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same or related statutes”). Thus, at least in this posture, the Government has not carried its burden to show that §12406(3) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect fed- eral personnel and property in Illinois. We need not and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the Pres- ident under §12406(3) or any other statute.
The application for stay is denied.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreigpypa435od2mqkxeftymwgbg2uepclp6razy2u5gc3efakb7v2kq)
