President Donald Trump's plan to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago was largely backed by Republicans and reasonable people on both sides of the aisle who know it's necessary to bring down soaring crime rates, but the move was blocked by a Democrat-appointed judge.
According to the Daily Caller, President Trump and his administration are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved and approve the deployment of National Guard troops to the crime-torn city.
The request to the high court came a day after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stop a lower court's decision in halting the deployment of troops to the city.
Solicitor General John Sauer laid out the argument for troops and federal officers to be deployed to Chicago, citing safety concerns especially for those stationed at federal facilities.
In the application to the Supreme Court, Sauer wrote that letting the lower court's order stand will "immediately increase the risk that federal personnel in Chicago may be seriously harmed by violent anti-ICE agitators."
He then argued on behalf of the Trump administration that any block of the deployment of federal officers and troops puts lives in danger every single day.
“[The ruling] deprives DHS officers of the protections that the President sought to give them from ongoing violence, prevents the Guard from ensuring the enforcement of federal law, and puts lives and property in danger,” Sauer wrote.
He added, "It also places the Seventh Circuit in the untenable position of controlling the military chain of command and judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, including the decision about which military forces the President can deploy."
The Daily Caller noted:
Saur noted the Ninth Circuit blocked a lower court order in June preventing Trump from sending troops to Los Angeles. He also highlighted that lower courts are currently considering a similar injunction blocking Trump from “federalizing the Oregon National Guard to address violent opposition to federal immigration officers in Portland."
Sauer added, "In recent weeks, federal officers in Chicago have been threatened and assaulted, attacked in a harrowing pre-planned ambush involving many assailants, rammed in their government vehicles, shot at with fireworks and other improvised weapons, injured and hospitalized, and threatened in person and online—including by a $10,000 bounty for the murder of a senior federal official."
The appeals court panel was quick to shoot down the request to overturn the lower court's ruling.
The court wrote that there is "insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws."
"Political opposition is not rebellion," the panel added.
"A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows."
