• The US Supreme Court has denied Trump's request to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago.
• Justices ruled that the President lacks the authority to deploy the military under current circumstances.
• The ruling maintains a lower court's blocking order amid ongoing legal challenges.
• Governor JB Pritzker hailed the decision as a victory for democracy and state power.
• The case reflects deep divisions over federal military action in Democratic-led cities.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on Tuesday, dismissed the Trump administration's bid to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, rejecting a push for federal intervention amid ongoing legal disputes. In a move that marks a significant setback for President Trump, the court's majority emphasized that the government had not shown adequate legal grounds to justify military action in Illinois, saying, "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," according to Reuters, CBS News, and The Hill.

This decision maintains a previous order from U.S. District Judge April Perry, who had initially blocked the deployment citing a lack of evidence for the need to quell violence or rebellion in the city. Judge Perry argued that sending troops could exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them, stating that protests had been manageable and largely peaceful, far from the "war zone" conditions depicted by the Trump administration, according to SFGate and HuffPost.

The Supreme Court's ruling is viewed as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over federal military involvement in American cities, especially those governed by Democratic leadership. Governor JB Pritzker described the court's decision as a victory against what he termed the Trump administration’s abuse of power. Pritzker stated, “American cities should not have to face masked federal agents,” emphasizing the constitutional concerns surrounding the military deployment to support local law enforcement during protests, according to Los Angeles Times and Channel News Asia.

The case has been part of broader disputes involving troop deployments across various Democratic-led cities, including Portland and Los Angeles, where officials have similarly contested the federal government’s assertions of unrest. Lower court rulings in those locations have also blocked similar deployment orders, illustrating a trend of legal resistance against the federalization of state National Guard forces without strong justification under the Constitution, according to BBC and SCMP.

In response to the court's decision, the administration's legal team expressed disappointment, asserting that the deployment was essential to protect federal personnel and property amid what they described as violent opposition to immigration enforcement actions. They have prepared to appeal lower court decisions, reflective of Trump's broader strategy regarding federal authority and troop deployment within the United States, according to SFGate, The Hill, and HuffPost.