The Supreme Court just handed down a decision that may have flipped the script on how federal force can be used in American cities.
According to Yahoo! News, after restricting President Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard to Chicago without the governor’s approval, the Court’s interpretation has now opened the door to something even more dramatic: the use of regular military units like the Marines or the 82nd Airborne.
Legal scholar John Yoo, a former deputy attorney general, joined Fox News to explain the implications of a ruling that could force the hand of any president trying to provide law enforcement backup amid chaos, even if local leaders refuse federal assistance.
Court Narrows National Guard Authority
At the heart of the case was Trump’s attempt to send National Guard troops to Chicago, primarily to protect federal agents and government buildings in what had become increasingly unstable conditions for ICE personnel.
Governor J.B. Pritzker flatly opposed the move, declined the deployment under state authority, and led a legal charge that blocked it. That legal battle culminated in a Supreme Court ruling that tightened the reins on the president’s authority to activate the National Guard in such contexts without first exhausting options through regular military forces.
This is the first time the Court has interpreted the term “regular forces” in such a domestic enforcement role—and it might be the very definition of an unintended consequence.
Yoo Warns of Legal Catch-22
According to Yoo, the Court now requires the president to first attempt to enforce the law using the Armed Forces before turning to the National Guard, a reversal of what many assumed to be the more restrained option.
“The Supreme Court now says ‘regular forces’ means you have to try with the regular Armed Forces first before you can bring out the National Guard,” Yoo said during his Fox News appearance. He indicated this could inadvertently escalate matters rather than calm them.
That explanation leads to an ironic twist—by tying the president’s hands on the Guard, the Court may be encouraging direct deployment of more robust military units into major cities before turning to local troops, which could trigger exactly the sort of tension critics claim to oppose.
Historical Precedent Raises Eyebrows
Yoo drew parallels to President Eisenhower’s use of the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation in the South, suggesting that precedent could now be applied to Trump’s situation. He mused that deploying “the 82nd Airborne or the Marines or the 101st Airborne Division” might be where this decision logically leads. That’s no small escalation—and it’s one strictly mandated by the Court’s own framework.
While critics cried authoritarianism, others see the ruling as backfiring. Requiring the use of regular troops in domestic law enforcement isn’t just dramatic—it may be precisely what most governors would rather avoid.
Pritzker Cheers, But Be Careful What You Wish For
Governor Pritzker celebrated the ruling publicly, calling it a win for democracy and a check on what he labeled the administration’s “abuse of power.” Yoo, however, was quick to point out the layers beneath the sentiment: “Second, and I think more worrisome,” he said, “is that the Supreme Court is essentially inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops...before he can send the National Guard.” Let that sink in. A progressive lawsuit aimed at preventing the National Guard’s arrival may now have paved the way for actual military boots to patrol American streets.
Legal Door Still Cracked Open
Yoo emphasized that the existing decision is “just preliminary” and that Trump could appeal for a ruling on the full merits, keeping the legal pathway open for a more definitive outcome from the full Court.
“Trump will, of course, now have the right to go to the Supreme Court on the full merits,” Yoo said. That means this controversy is far from settled—and the legal and political ramifications are only beginning to take shape. This evolving case underscores the clash between local resistance and federal authority, and it marks a new chapter in how America navigates emergencies in cities governed by partisanship rather than partnership.
