Case: State of Illinois v. Trump

1:25-cv-12174 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Oct. 6, 2025

Closed Date: April 20, 2026

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged the Trump administration's attempt to federalize and deploy the National Guard within Illinois for civil immigration enforcement, testing the limits of presidential power over domestic military deployment. On October 6, 2025, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, the Department of Defen…

On October 6, 2025, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Secretary, the U.S. Army, and the Army Secretary, all in their official capacities. According to the complaint, the administration had ordered a surge of heavily armed federal agents into Illinois to conduct civil immigration enforcement, and agents had fired chemical munitions into crowds outside the Broadview ICE processing facility and deployed masked, armed personnel through downtown Chicago. Plaintiffs alleged that the President then invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize approximately 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and members of the Texas National Guard, ordering them to Illinois. Represented by the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the City of Chicago Department of Law, plaintiffs brought claims under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (arguing the statutory predicates of invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce the laws were absent), the Tenth Amendment (asserting violation of state sovereignty), and the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (asserting an unlawful use of the military for domestic law enforcement). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief halting the federalization and deployment order, along with attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The case was assigned to District Judge J. Phil Gilbert.

On October 9, 2025, Judge Gilbert granted a temporary restraining order (TRO). 2025 WL 2886645. In a 51-page opinion issued after a hearing, the court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the executive's invocation of § 12406 lacked the required statutory predicates, and that judicial review was not barred by the political question doctrine. Id. The court found that the term "regular forces" in § 12406(3) likely referred to the regular forces of the United States military, not civilian law enforcement, a reading that further undermined the government's position. Judge Gilbert also found irreparable harm to state sovereignty and that the public interest weighed in plaintiffs' favor. Id. The TRO enjoined federal officials (but not President Trump personally) from ordering or executing the federalization or deployment of the National Guard within Illinois. Id.

On October 10, 2025, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The following day, the Seventh Circuit issued an administrative stay in part, temporarily staying the TRO only as to the federalization of the National Guard (allowing Guard members already in Illinois to remain under federal control) but denying the stay as to the deployment of the Guard within the state. On October 16, 2025, a panel consisting of Circuit Judges Ilana Diamond Rovner, David F. Hamilton, and Amy J. St. Eve issued a full ruling on the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. 155 F.4th 929. The court granted the stay in part, allowing the federalization to remain in effect, but denied the stay as to deployment, holding that the government had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. The panel agreed with the district court's preliminary assessment that the government had not shown that § 12406 authorized the deployment and that the balance of equities, including irreparable harm to Illinois's sovereign rights, weighed against allowing deployment. Id.

On October 23, 2025, Judge Gilbert entered a preliminary injunction formalizing the TRO. State of Illinois v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-12174 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2025) (preliminary injunction order), ECF No. 98. The order continued to enjoin defendants (other than President Trump personally) from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard within Illinois until final judgment. Id. Consistent with the Seventh Circuit's October 16 ruling, the injunction against federalization was stayed pending appeal. Id.

On October 17, 2025, the federal defendants filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking Justice Amy Coney Barrett (the Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit) to vacate or stay the injunction prohibiting deployment. On October 29, 2025, Justice Barrett referred the application to the full Court and ordered supplemental briefing on whether the term "regular forces" in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) refers to the regular forces of the United States military and, if so, how that interpretation affects the statute's operation. The Court directed the parties and amici to brief these issues by mid-November.

On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the federal defendants' emergency application for a stay in a per curiam opinion. Trump v. Illinois, 146 S.Ct. 432 (2025) (per curiam). The Court concluded that the term "regular forces" in § 12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military, not civilian law enforcement officers. Id. Under this interpretation, the President could call the Guard into active federal service under § 12406(3) only if he was "unable" with the regular military to execute the laws, and such inability likely presupposed that the military could lawfully execute the laws in the first place. Id. Because the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, generally prohibits the military from executing domestic law, and because the government had not invoked a statutory exception to the Act but instead relied on inherent constitutional authority to protect federal personnel and property, the Court found that the government had not carried its burden to show that § 12406(3) authorized the federalization of the Guard. Id. The Court noted that the government's own position that protective functions do not constitute "executing the laws" under the Posse Comitatus Act undermined its argument that the same functions could constitute "executing the laws" under § 12406(3). Id.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but would have decided the case on narrower grounds. 146 S. Ct. at 435 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in judgement). He agreed that "regular forces" likely refers to the United States military but concluded that the President had simply not yet made the statutorily required determination that he was "unable" with the military, as distinct from civilian law enforcement, to ensure the execution of federal law in Illinois. Id. at 435. Justice Kavanaugh would not have reached the broader statutory questions about the interaction between § 12406(3) and the Posse Comitatus Act, and he noted that the Court could have benefited from further briefing or oral argument before opining on those difficult issues. Id. at 436–37.

Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the case raised deeply consequential and unresolved questions about domestic military deployment, the scope of § 12406(3), its relationship to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act, and inherent presidential authority under Article II. 146 S. Ct. at 445–46 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). He would have decided the application narrowly, based only on the arguments the parties had preserved and the evidentiary record before the district court. Id. at 446. On those grounds, Justice Gorsuch agreed with the Alito dissent that the government's declarations supported granting a stay. Id.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, also dissented. 146 S. Ct. at 437 (Alito, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting). Justice Alito argued that the Court had improperly departed from the principle of party presentation by raising the "regular forces" issue on its own, after the parties had agreed below that the term referred to civilian law enforcement officers. Id. at 437–38. Justice Alito contended that respondents had waived this argument three times over and that the Court should have decided the application on the party-presented controversy. Id. at 440–42. On the merits as framed by the parties, he argued that the government's declarations provided ample support for the President's determination that he was unable to execute federal law in the Chicago area using civilian law enforcement. Id.

On December 31, 2025, President Trump publicly announced that he would abandon efforts to deploy National Guard troops over the objections of state officials in California, Illinois, and Oregon.

In the Seventh Circuit, on January 12, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for summary affirmance of the district court's TRO and vacatur of the partial stay regarding federalization of the Illinois National Guard, arguing that the Supreme Court's denial of the government's emergency application on the merits made affirmance appropriate. On January 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the appeal. On January 22, 2026, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), vacated the partial stay of the district court's October 9, 2025 order as to the federalization of the Guard, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary affirmance as moot. State of Illinois v. Trump, No. 25-2798 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026) (order dismissing appeal and vacating partial stay).

Meanwhile, on January 14, 2026 in the district court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Gilbert stayed proceedings until January 30, 2026 (upon the parties' representation that they were engaged in settlement negotiations) with a joint status report due on January 28. ECF No. 120. The parties timely filed a joint status report in which they represented that they continued to disagree on key points of law and were unlikely to reach a settlement. ECF No. 124.

On February 6, 2026, the government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on mootness grounds, arguing that all Illinois National Guard had been demobilized and all National Guard forces from other states had been removed from Illinois. ECF No. 129. In a response filed March 10, 2026, the plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending that the case was not moot under the voluntary cessation doctrine because the government had not made the requisite showing that the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. ECF No. 134.

On April 20, 2026, Judge Gilbert held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated in open court, Judge Gilbert found that the case was moot and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court directed the defendants to file, by April 23, 2026, either a publicly available redacted version of the memorandum relied upon by the court in its ruling (along with a motion to seal the remaining portions explaining why sealing was justified), or a fully publicly available copy of the memorandum. State of Illinois v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-12174 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2026) (minute order dismissing case as moot), ECF No. 151; Judgment, ECF No. 152.


120 1:25-cv-12174	Notification of Docket Entry State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al.	Jan. 14, 2026	Jan. 14, 2026 Docket
122 1:25-cv-12174	Notice of Issuance of Mandate State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Jan. 22, 2026	Jan. 22, 2026 Docket
151 1:25-cv-12174	Notification of Docket Entry State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al.	April 20, 2026	April 20, 2026 Docket
1 1:25-cv-12174	Complaint for Emergency, Declaratory, and Injunctive Relief State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al.	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 Complaint
49 1:25-cv-12174	Brief In Support Of Motion For Preliminary Injunction By Amicus Curiae Cook County, Illinois State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al.	Oct. 8, 2025	Oct. 8, 2025 Pleading / Motion / Brief
67 1:25-cv-12174	Temporary Restraining Order	Oct. 9, 2025	Oct. 9, 2025 Order/Opinion
70 1:25-cv-12174	Opinion and Order	Oct. 10, 2025	Oct. 10, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 2886645
8 25-02798	Order State of Illinois et al. v. Trump U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Oct. 11, 2025	Oct. 11, 2025 Order/Opinion
26 25-02798	Opinion State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Oct. 16, 2025	Oct. 16, 2025 Order/Opinion 2025 WL 2937065
98 1:25-cv-12174	Agreed Extension of Temporary Restraining Order State of Illinois et al. v. Trump et al.	Oct. 23, 2025	Oct. 23, 2025 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT filed by City Of Chicago, State of Illinois ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24160860.(North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 Clearinghouse
2	MOTION by Plaintiffs City Of Chicago, State of Illinois for leave to file excess pages UNOPPOSED (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
3	MOTION by Plaintiffs City Of Chicago, State of Illinois for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
4	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Donald J. Trump by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
5	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
6	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Kristi Noem by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
7	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Department of Defense by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
8	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Peter Hegseth by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
9	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) United States Army by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
10	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Daniel P. Driscoll by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
11	CIVIL Cover Sheet (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
12	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff State of Illinois by Christopher Graham Wells (Wells, Christopher) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
13	MEMORANDUM by City Of Chicago, State of Illinois in support of motion for temporary restraining order 3 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21)(North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025) 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 3 Exhibit 2 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit 3 View on RECAP 5 Exhibit 4 View on RECAP 6 Exhibit 5 View on RECAP 7 Exhibit 6 View on RECAP 8 Exhibit 7 View on RECAP 9 Exhibit 8 View on RECAP 10 Exhibit 9 View on RECAP 11 Exhibit 10 View on RECAP 12 Exhibit 11 View on RECAP 13 Exhibit 12 View on RECAP 14 Exhibit 13 View on RECAP 15 Exhibit 14 View on RECAP 16 Exhibit 15 View on RECAP 17 Exhibit 16 View on RECAP 18 Exhibit 17 View on RECAP 19 Exhibit 18 View on RECAP 20 Exhibit 19 View on RECAP 21 Exhibit 20 View on RECAP 22 Exhibit 21 View on RECAP	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
14	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City Of Chicago by Chelsey Blaire Metcalf (Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
15	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City Of Chicago by Stephen J Kane (Kane, Stephen) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
16	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Donald J. Trump by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
17	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
18	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Kristi Noem by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
19	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Department of Defense by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
20	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Peter Hegseth by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
21	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) United States Army by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
22	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Daniel P. Driscoll by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
23	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) United States Attorney, Andrew S. Boutros by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
24	SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Pamela Bondi by Plaintiff State of Illinois (North, Sarah) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
25	MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Status hearing to be held 10/6/2025 at 2pm in person in Courtroom 1725. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
26	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff State of Illinois by Sherief Gaber (Gaber, Sherief) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
27	SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Daniel Driscoll, Peter Hegseth, KRISTI NOEM, Donald J. Trump, United States Army, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 summons, # 2 summons, # 3 summons, # 4 summons, # 5 summons, # 6 summons, # 7 summons, # 8 summons)(axk, ) (Entered: 10/06/2025) 1 summons View on PACER 2 summons View on PACER 3 summons View on PACER 4 summons View on PACER 5 summons View on PACER 6 summons View on PACER 7 summons View on PACER 8 summons View on PACER	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
28	ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Daniel Driscoll, Peter Hegseth, KRISTI NOEM, Donald J. Trump, United States Army by Jean Lin (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
29	ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Daniel Driscoll, Peter Hegseth, KRISTI NOEM, Donald J. Trump, United States Army by Christopher David Edelman (Edelman, Christopher) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
30	MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Status hearing held 10/6/2025. Defendants are given until 10/8/2025 at 11:59 p.m. to file any written response to Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 3 . The Court expects that the written response will include evidence about: (1) when National Guard troops will arrive in Illinois; (2) what municipalities within Illinois troops will be sent to; and (3) what the scope of the troops' activities will be once here. Oral argument will be held 10/9/2025 at 11:00 a.m. in person in Courtroom 1725. To the extent there are additional factual developments between now and 10/9/2025 at 11:00 a.m., the parties may supplement their filings with additional evidence, or request that Thursday's oral argument be converted to an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess pages 2 is granted. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
31	CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff State of Illinois regarding complaint 1, summons issued as to USA (Court Participant), 27 (Gaber, Sherief) (Entered: 10/06/2025)	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025 RECAP
	case assigned	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
	clerk's notice	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
	CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable April M. Perry. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (khg, )	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
	CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (khg, )	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
	SUMMONS - ERROR UNPROCESSED due to multiple parties listed on summons form in "to" section. Please only list one defendant per summons. Additionally, please submit a summons for the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General per F.R.C.P. Rule 4. (axk, )	Oct. 6, 2025	Oct. 6, 2025
32	ENTERED IN ERROR. (Entered: 10/07/2025)	Oct. 7, 2025	Oct. 7, 2025 RECAP
33	MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: For the attorneys' planning purposes, Thursday's oral argument will proceed as follows: (1) Plaintiffs will be permitted 10 minutes for an opening argument, after which Defendants will be permitted 10 minutes for an opening argument; (2) the Court will ask the parties questions regarding the evidence and the law; (3) based upon the Court's questions and presentations by the opposing party, each side will be permitted to make a 15-minute closing argument. Plaintiffs may reserve up to 5 minutes of their closing argument time for rebuttal. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 10/07/2025)	Oct. 7, 2025	Oct. 7, 2025 RECAP
34	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff State of Illinois by Michael M. Tresnowski (Tresnowski, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2025)	Oct. 7, 2025	Oct. 7, 2025 RECAP
35	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff State of Illinois by Katherine Pannella (Pannella, Katherine) (Entered: 10/07/2025)	Oct. 7, 2025	Oct. 7, 2025 RECAP

Case: State of Illinois v. Trump

1:25-cv-12174 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details