The Trump administration's 29th emergency application—to let it deploy federalized National Guard troops in Chicago on a profoundly dubious factual predicate—is a make-or-break moment for the Court.
There is something even more fundamental at stake that whether the president can call out the Texas National Guard to police the streets of Chicago.
At stake is the very legitimacy and function of the Supreme Court itself. How many times has the Supreme Court said that an appellate court is not a fact-finder? That an appellate court must accept as true the facts as found by the district court, except in those rare cases in which other facts in the record demonstrate that the trial court’s findings are CLEARLY erroneous the Supreme Court has even adopted A Rule that says precisely that.
In short when the Supreme Court departs from this rule and makes up its own facts, its decisions lose all legitimacy.
My comment was in agreement with yours, not Bowman Cutter's.
Just to be clear, I agree 100% with your statement, "In short when the Supreme Court departs from this rule and makes up its own facts, its decisions lose all legitimacy."
The corrupt SCOTUS 6 already have so much blood on their hands in terms of damage to our democracy. I put nothing past them. They hand the #DirtyOldMan win after win. Why stop now? I hope I'm wrong.
So this is just the latest "stopping point" on the astonishingly fast slide into full-blown executive authoritarianism. If SCOTUS grants a stay on the district court's TRO, constitutional order is not just cooked, it has been ceded practically without a fight to the executive branch (Congress has also ceded all of its powers to the executive branch, but that took a little longer).
Isn’t the DHS memorandum to the Secretary of Defense invalid because, in the United Stares of America, there is no “Department of War,” and therefore it cannot provide any assistance?
In addition to giving the executive branch carte blanche (literally in practice as well as figuratively since "blanche" is the female form of the French adjective for white) to pursue the most racist aspects of its agenda , a decision to grant the emergency application to deploy federalized National Guard troops in Chicago (if from Texas then confirming that the War of Southern Aggression has been launched) lays the groundwork for nationwide voter intimidation and vote suppression at the mid-terms in 2026.
I'm a retired RN, (my federal HHS contracted RN position was eliminated, immediately, 7/18/25 without notice). I want to thank you for your scintillating, honest, compassionate, reporting truth to power with keystone like foundational evidence. We are all in this together. No Kings. Peace. Christopher and family.
Steve: Can you help me become a bit less confused? This case is about the federalization and deployment of National Guard to Chicago to (ostensibly) protect federal buildings like the Broadview Immigration facility based on debunked facts that don’t meet the statute’s conditions. But what about the use of the military to “put down an insurrection” (real or perceived)? Even if SCOTUS rules against Trump here, will Trump be able to send in
The troops (on Election Day, for example)? Where is the restraint on that action?
The Supreme Court is a rogue, corrupt, and politicized institution - it’s made a good case for being abolished. But right now the majority has the chance to install an authoritarian government and who woukd bet it will miss the chance. My own bet is that troops are going into Chicago and everywhere else. I was interested in Professor Vladeck’s parenthesis regarding whether we will see another presidential election - I suspect we will not in any real sense but it’s interesting that the parenthesis indicates that Professor Vladeck may be beginning to share that fear. But when the court makes the worst possible decision I hope that finally Professor Vladeck will see and write where this Court is going. I’m old and won’t be around when/if history’s wheel turns and there is a functional Democracy in America again. But when it does this court will be seen like the German courts in the 1930’s are viewed today m
The SCOTUS majority will not break its partisanship to stop Trump from deploying troops in Chicago. SCOTUS immunized Trump from murder in order to strengthen his hand in nullifying liberal legislation enacted since 1933. This bunch of Fox News watchers in black robes isn't going to stop him now.
Is there a reasonable chance that the SC will “call out” as “overstatement” the factual Assertions of the Solicitor General? And how about at least a footnote suggesting that the SG bring the temperature of the rhetoric down. For most judges, the inflammatory rhetoric is a turn off. Often it speaks indirectly to factual weakness in the case, too.
There was a SO much to unpack in this incredibly important post. I truly hope that those who support the administration’s efforts in Trump v Illinois realize that these new tactics will also be in the hands of future administrations that Trump’s base may not support. Be careful what you wish for!
In additionn to giving the unitary exceutive carte blanche (literally in practice as well as figurativley since "blanche" is the female form of the French adjective for white, a decision to grant the emergency application to deploy fedralized National Guard troops in Chicago (if from Texas then confirming that the War of Southern Aggression has been launched) lays the groudwork for
There is something even more fundamental at stake that whether the president can call out the Texas National Guard to police the streets of Chicago.
At stake is the very legitimacy and function of the Supreme Court itself. How many times has the Supreme Court said that an appellate court is not a fact-finder? That an appellate court must accept as true the facts as found by the district court, except in those rare cases in which other facts in the record demonstrate that the trial court’s findings are CLEARLY erroneous the Supreme Court has even adopted A Rule that says precisely that.
In short when the Supreme Court departs from this rule and makes up its own facts, its decisions lose all legitimacy.
The courts was a big mistake by the founders. And should be abolished
Precisely!
No! We need the federal courts as an impartial and honest broker of constitutional didputes
My comment was in agreement with yours, not Bowman Cutter's.
Just to be clear, I agree 100% with your statement, "In short when the Supreme Court departs from this rule and makes up its own facts, its decisions lose all legitimacy."
The corrupt SCOTUS 6 already have so much blood on their hands in terms of damage to our democracy. I put nothing past them. They hand the #DirtyOldMan win after win. Why stop now? I hope I'm wrong.
So this is just the latest "stopping point" on the astonishingly fast slide into full-blown executive authoritarianism. If SCOTUS grants a stay on the district court's TRO, constitutional order is not just cooked, it has been ceded practically without a fight to the executive branch (Congress has also ceded all of its powers to the executive branch, but that took a little longer).
Nova Anglia secedenda est
Isn’t the DHS memorandum to the Secretary of Defense invalid because, in the United Stares of America, there is no “Department of War,” and therefore it cannot provide any assistance?
I apologize for my previous truncated comment
In addition to giving the executive branch carte blanche (literally in practice as well as figuratively since "blanche" is the female form of the French adjective for white) to pursue the most racist aspects of its agenda , a decision to grant the emergency application to deploy federalized National Guard troops in Chicago (if from Texas then confirming that the War of Southern Aggression has been launched) lays the groundwork for nationwide voter intimidation and vote suppression at the mid-terms in 2026.
Steve, et al,
I'm a retired RN, (my federal HHS contracted RN position was eliminated, immediately, 7/18/25 without notice). I want to thank you for your scintillating, honest, compassionate, reporting truth to power with keystone like foundational evidence. We are all in this together. No Kings. Peace. Christopher and family.
We should start calling Trump supporters the Royalists.
So, no biggie, SCOTUS just has to decide whether it agrees that facts matter and reality exists! /s
Does this court set precedents? I thought that concept had been abandoned.
Steve: Can you help me become a bit less confused? This case is about the federalization and deployment of National Guard to Chicago to (ostensibly) protect federal buildings like the Broadview Immigration facility based on debunked facts that don’t meet the statute’s conditions. But what about the use of the military to “put down an insurrection” (real or perceived)? Even if SCOTUS rules against Trump here, will Trump be able to send in
The troops (on Election Day, for example)? Where is the restraint on that action?
The Supreme Court is a rogue, corrupt, and politicized institution - it’s made a good case for being abolished. But right now the majority has the chance to install an authoritarian government and who woukd bet it will miss the chance. My own bet is that troops are going into Chicago and everywhere else. I was interested in Professor Vladeck’s parenthesis regarding whether we will see another presidential election - I suspect we will not in any real sense but it’s interesting that the parenthesis indicates that Professor Vladeck may be beginning to share that fear. But when the court makes the worst possible decision I hope that finally Professor Vladeck will see and write where this Court is going. I’m old and won’t be around when/if history’s wheel turns and there is a functional Democracy in America again. But when it does this court will be seen like the German courts in the 1930’s are viewed today m
The SCOTUS majority will not break its partisanship to stop Trump from deploying troops in Chicago. SCOTUS immunized Trump from murder in order to strengthen his hand in nullifying liberal legislation enacted since 1933. This bunch of Fox News watchers in black robes isn't going to stop him now.
SCOTUS making up their own facts: it's not just for "religious liberties" any more!
Is there a reasonable chance that the SC will “call out” as “overstatement” the factual Assertions of the Solicitor General? And how about at least a footnote suggesting that the SG bring the temperature of the rhetoric down. For most judges, the inflammatory rhetoric is a turn off. Often it speaks indirectly to factual weakness in the case, too.
I'm not holding my breath.
There was a SO much to unpack in this incredibly important post. I truly hope that those who support the administration’s efforts in Trump v Illinois realize that these new tactics will also be in the hands of future administrations that Trump’s base may not support. Be careful what you wish for!
Thank you for this important post.
I note the link to the Guardian piece ("decreasing other fonts of cooperation with the federal government") appears to be broken
It seems to be fixed if you're referring to the link for "decreasing other fonts of cooperation with the federal government".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/19/blue-states-fight-back-against-trump
In additionn to giving the unitary exceutive carte blanche (literally in practice as well as figurativley since "blanche" is the female form of the French adjective for white, a decision to grant the emergency application to deploy fedralized National Guard troops in Chicago (if from Texas then confirming that the War of Southern Aggression has been launched) lays the groudwork for