Enabled by a Federal Judge, Chicago-Area Mayors Seek to Shut Down Immigration Law Enforcement

Summary

• In September, DHS launched “Operation Midway Blitz” in the Chicago area targeting criminal illegal aliens. In the nearby suburb of Broadview, ICE’s detainee processing center has been a locus of protest. On October 4, President Trump concluded that “federal facilities in Illinois, including those directly supporting [ICE] … have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing Federal law enforcement activities”, including at the Broadview facility. He called into federal service members of the Illinois National Guard “to protect ICE … personnel … executing Federal law in the State of Illinois, and Federal property in the State of Illinois”.
• Litigation ensued, and on October 10, U.S. District Court Judge April Perry granted a temporary restraining order that enjoined President Trump from federalizing and deploying the National Guard within Illinois. Judge Perry could not find sufficient evidence that the president was unable to otherwise execute the laws. The administration immediately appealed and moved for a stay of the order. On October 16, the Seventh Circuit denied a stay as to the actual deployment of the National Guard, but allowed for its federalization.

• Judge Perry contended that “the provocative nature of ICE’s enforcement activity has caused a significant increase in protest activity”, that allowing the “deployment of National Guard members is likely to lead to civil unrest”, and that “allowing … deploy[ment] at the Broadview Processing Center or anywhere else in Illinois will only add fuel to the fire that [President Trump and administration officials] themselves started”. Judge Perry was blaming law enforcement for having the audacity to actually enforce the law. She even condemned the goal of vigorous enforcement of the law. How dare DHS provocatively enforce the duly enacted immigration laws of our nation and thus antagonize those who demand that the immigration laws not be enforced!

  But as a federal court explained in 1936, “[A]ccession to the demands of … rioters … results in the restoration of peace and order at the sacrifice of law. … Carried to its logical conclusion, [it] would result in the civil authorities suppressing lawlessness by compelling the surrender of the intended victims of lawlessness.”

• Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson has accused ICE of “a pattern of escalating aggression”, and of “making war on my community”. Meanwhile, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has proclaimed that President Trump and DHS have “declare[d] war on Chicago and American cities across this country” and that the president “is using ICE as his private militarized occupying force”. And Johnson promised that “Whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s in the streets or with policy, we’re going to continue to defend and stand up for working people.”

• Judge Perry wrote that “with respect to [the Trump administration’s] descriptions of the ICE Processing Center protests, [its] version of the facts … are impossible to align with the perspectives of state and local law enforcement”. She concluded that “[w]hile the Court does not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents”, she “cannot conclude that [the administration’s] declarations are reliable”, even questioning its “ability to accurately assess the facts”.

  I wonder if Judge Perry ever considered the possibility that state and local law enforcement leadership might have reported significantly less anti-DHS violence because their views had been shaped by the extreme views and irresponsible rhetoric of their ultimate bosses, Mayor Thompson and Illinois Governor Pritzker? I wonder if she took into account the reprehensible action of Chicago Police Department leadership, as uncovered by Fox News, in ordering police officers not to come to the aid of DHS officers “who were rammed and surrounded by protesters”?

• I wonder if Mayors Thompson and Johnson ever considered how the fate of this nation could have been altered had Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson shared their repulsion at the thought of federal military forces entering communities to ensure the enforcement of federal law and thus not sent in the military to protect black citizens from mob violence during the 1950s and 1960s?

---

A Broad View of Operation “Midway Blitz”

On September 8, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced “Operation Midway Blitz” “in honor of Katie Abraham who was killed in a drunk driving hit-and-run car wreck caused by criminal illegal alien Julio Cucul-Bol in Illinois”. DHS explained that:

• This ICE operation will target the criminal illegal aliens who flocked to Chicago and Illinois because they knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets.

• “This operation will target the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Chicago,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

About four weeks later, on October 3, McLaughlin announced that “During Operation Midway Blitz, our brave DHS law enforcement has made more than 1,000 arrests across Illinois including of pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.”

Judge April Perry of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois described¹ Broadview, Ill., as an “unassuming … small suburb approximately twelve miles west of downtown Chicago” with about 8,000 residents and “home to an [ICE] Processing Center, where ICE detainees are temporarily held before being transported elsewhere”. Broadview describes itself as “a diverse and thriving community”, and that “Led by … the first African American female mayor in the village’s history, [it] is dedicated to public safety, thoughtful economic development, and fostering an inclusive and resilient community where all families feel safe, valued, and empowered.”

Judge Perry compared and contrasted Broadview before and during Operation Midway Blitz:

• For the past nineteen years, the ICE Processing Center has regularly been visited by small groups who hold prayer vigils outside. …

  In early September 2025, ICE’s Chicago Field Office Director informed the Broadview Police Department that approximately 250 to 300 Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) agents would begin arriving in Illinois for an immigration enforcement campaign dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.”… This escalation in enforcement activity caused a corresponding increase in protests near the ICE Processing Center.

• There has been overwhelming evidence presented that the provocative nature of ICE’s enforcement activity has caused a significant increase in protest activity.

The “provocative nature” of DHS’s enforcement activity?! Judge Perry was engaging in blaming law enforcement for having the audacity to actually enforce the law. How dare DHS provocatively enforce the duly enacted immigration laws of our nation and thus antagonize those persons, citizen and alien alike, who demand that the immigration laws not be enforced! Who does President Trump think he is, the Deporter-in-Chief? That was Barack Obama.

Then, Judge Perry concluded that “deployment of National Guard members is likely to lead to civil unrest” and that:

Given that National Guard members “are trained to effectively destroy enemies in combat scenarios” rather than to de-escalate conflicts … the Court believes that allowing them to deploy at the Broadview Processing Center or anywhere else in Illinois will only add fuel to the fire that [President Trump and administration officials] themselves started.

[footnote] In both Los Angeles and Portland, the National Guard’s presence has caused an increase in civil unrest.

The fire that Trump and his cabinet themselves started — by seeking to enforce the law?! My colleague Andrew Arthur has recently written that this “in my mind is akin to an aggressor telling his victim, ‘Look what you made me do.’” It seems that Arthur was channeling the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota’s wise words in its 1936 decision in Strutwear Knitting Co. v. Olson:

That … accession to the demands of insurrectionists or rioters … is one way of restoring peace and quelling disorder, no one will deny. It has a direct, even though a dishonorable, relation to the maintenance of order, but no relation at all to the preservation of law. It results in the restoration of peace and order at the sacrifice of law.

The Court went on to say that:

A rule which would permit an official, whose duty it was to enforce the law, to disregard the very law which it was his duty to enforce, in order to pacify a mob or suppress an insurrection, would deprive all citizens of any security in the enjoyment of their lives, liberty, or property. … Carried to its logical conclusion, the rule would result in the civil authorities suppressing lawlessness by compelling the surrender of the intended victims of lawlessness. The banks could be closed and emptied of their cash to prevent bank robberies; the post office locked to prevent the mails being robbed; the citizens kept off the streets to prevent holdups; and a person accused of murder could be properly surrendered to the mob which threatened to attack the jail in which he was confined.

It would not shock me to learn that Judge Perry would like to take this rule to its logical conclusion.

Returning to Chicago and Broadview, on October 4, President Trump issued a memorandum for the secretary of war, the attorney general, and the secretary of Homeland Security on the subject of “Department of War Security for the Protection of Federal Personnel and Property in Illinois”. President Trump wrote that:

Federal facilities in Illinois, including those directly supporting [ICE] … have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing Federal law enforcement activities. These groups have sought to impede the deportation and removal of criminal aliens through violent demonstrations, intimidation, and sabotage of Federal operations. These violent activities appear to be increasing, and the situation in the State of Illinois, particularly in and around the city of Chicago, cannot continue.

President Trump emphasized that:

[T]hese activities are similar to other ongoing efforts in multiple States and cities around the country to disrupt the faithful enforcement of Federal law. On June 7, 2025, I determined that similar activities warranted the mobilization of the National Guard. Likewise, at the end of September, I directed the Secretary of War to mobilize the National Guard due to ongoing violence and interference with Federal law enforcement in Oregon.

Thus, President Trump called into Federal service the Illinois National Guard:

I hereby call into Federal service at least 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, until the Governor of Illinois consents to a federally-funded mobilization … of the Illinois National Guard under State control. The members of the Illinois National Guard called into Federal service shall protect ICE … and other United States Government personnel who are executing Federal law in the State of Illinois, and Federal property in the State of Illinois. They shall do so at any locations at which violent demonstrations prevent the execution of Federal law or are likely to prevent the execution of Federal law based on current threat assessments and planned operations.

Of course, litigation ensued. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described, “The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago promptly sued President Trump and members of his administration, arguing that none of the statutory predicates for federalizing the Guard … had been met, and that the federalization also violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act.”² Then, per the Seventh Circuit:

[On October 10, Judge Perry] granted plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the administration from federalizing and deploying the Guard within Illinois.³ In the district court’s view of the factual record, neither of the predicate conditions for federalization proffered by the administration was present in Illinois: There was insufficient evidence of rebellion or a danger of a rebellion … nor was there sufficient evidence that the President was unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. … The administration immediately appealed and moved for a stay of the order pending appeal.

For more on the legal issues alluded to by the Seventh Circuit, see this piece I wrote in June.

In any event, on October 16, the Seventh Circuit decided in Illinois v. Trump⁴ that:

Because we conclude that the district court’s factual findings at this preliminary stage were not clearly erroneous, and that the facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois … even giving substantial deference to his assertions, we deny the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal except to the extent we continue our stay of the portion of the order enjoining the federalization of the Guard.

The Mayors

Chief among those demanding that the immigration laws not be enforced are Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson

On September 30, the Village of Broadview announced that Mayor Thompson had “issued a demand [to DHS] during a press conference”. Thompson’s main grievance was “a pattern of escalating aggression from ICE agents”, and she bemoaned the fact that “This extreme response is not only violating the rights of protesters but is actively endangering nearby Broadview residents and hampering the essential work of the village’s first responders.”

Among Mayor Thompson’s demands were that:

• “[T]he relentless deployment of chemical agents and physical force against protesters and the surrounding neighborhood [that] is ‘making war on my community[]’ … must be stopped.”

• “[E]nd … the current community siege.”

• “[C]ease hostile actions against the local community and immediately dismantle an illegally constructed security fence at the Broadview ICE processing center.”

Finally, Broadview proclaimed that Mayor Thompson “has advocated for a governing approach based on ‘love and kindness to achieve Broadview’s objectives’.” Thompson herself urged “ICE leadership, including their boss sitting hunkered down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, [to] try it”, assuring ICE leadership and President Trump that “It cannot hurt. It might help[.] Love and kindness. It works. Trust me.” Wait, what’s so funny ‘bout peace, love and understanding? Who elected Elvis Constello mayor of Broadview?⁵

I think Mayor Thompson may have had Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in mind with her broadside. Director Lyons had written in a September 26 letter to Mayor Thompson that:

We have repeatedly requested assistance from state and local law enforcement, including your own police department, to disperse these unlawful assemblies. Instead, local inaction has enabled agitators to escalate violence and placed federal officers, first responders, and Broadview residents in harm’s way. …

These rioters are laying siege and interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Failure to help provide relief makes you a party to the obstruction of justice. … The only siege in Broadview is the one being waged against the United States government. You can either continue to be part of the problem or choose to be part of the solution by directing your police to enforce local ordinances and working with us to remove violent offenders.

Hey, Director Lyons, next time try a little tenderness!

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson

In any event, Mayor Thompson is an anti-ICE poser compared to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. On June 17, Mariah Woelfel reported for WBEZ Chicago Public Media that:

• Mayor Brandon Johnson declared … that Chicagoans “have to go as far as necessary” to “protect our Constitution” as the Trump administration sets its sight on the city as a target for militarized immigration enforcement.

• “Whatever is necessary. … We should all be committed to doing just that,” Johnson said in response to the remark at a City Hall news conference. “Whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s in the streets or with policy, we’re going to continue to defend and stand up for working people.”

Then, on August 30, Mayor Johnson, a street fighting man if ever there was one, issued an executive order (EO) titled “Denouncing Any Attempts to Deploy the United States Armed Forces and/or the National Guard and/or Militarized Civil Immigration Enforcement in Chicago and to Establish the Protecting Chicago Initiative”. The EO stated that:

[T]he deployment of federal military forces and/or federal tactical units for civil immigration enforcement in Chicago exacerbates existing harms facing the City’s historically underserved residents and vulnerable populations, including Black and brown communities, unsheltered people, veterans, people who are formerly incarcerated, individuals experiencing poverty, and immigrant communities.

On September 8, Mayor Johnson posted on X that “Chicago doesn’t want to see reckless, unconstitutional, militarized immigration enforcement in our city” and later in September, he proclaimed that “Jails and incarceration and law enforcement is a sickness that has not led to safe communities.”

Then, on September 30, Mayor Johnson issued another executive order titled “Protecting the Right to Protest and Facilitating Safe and Peaceful Assembly”. The EO stated that:

• [T]he City of Chicago has long been a center of civic action, from the labor uprisings of the Haymarket era [which I presume includes the 1886 Haymarket Square Riot, during which, according to the Library of Congress, “Someone threw a home-made bomb and there was an exchange of gunfire. In the end, seven police officers and several civilians were killed”.] to the Civil Rights Movement, to the youth-led protests for racial and economic justice in our time [which I presume refers to the Black Lives Matter riots].

• [P]rotestors in Chicago have reported that federal agents have recently engaged in efforts to chill or restrict protest activity near federal buildings.

Then, on October 6, Mayor Johnson issued a third executive order titled “Prohibiting the Use of City Parking Lots, Vacant Lots, and Garages for Civil Immigration Enforcement Staging Areas, Processing Locations, or Operational Bases”. The EO stated that:

• [C]ivil immigration enforcement activities have historically undermined community trust, spread fear, and created barriers to accessing essential City services.

• Chicago has long recognized that public safety is best achieved through trust and collaboration between residents and local government, not through the militarization or deputization of City resources in service of civil immigration enforcement.

On that same day, the mayor’s office issued a press release bestowing on the EO the moniker “the ‘ICE Free Zone’ executive order” and stating that “In the wake of the ongoing incursion on the Constitutional rights of Chicagoans and the operations of federal immigration agents designed to stoke fear in communities across Chicago, Mayor Johnson is taking decisive action to protect Chicago’s immigrant community and the Constitutional rights of all Chicagoans.”

On October 9, Mayor Johnson held a press conference. He was introduced by U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who’s job was apparently to wind up the crowd:

• “[Operation Midway Blitz is] an invasion of our community.”⁶

• “I know what [President Trump’s] point is. Terror is the point.”⁷

• “[W]e know that this is never about security and safety. This is about cruelty and evil. And so let me end with saying this. This administration is creating violence to justify the deployment of the National Guard.”⁸

• “There will be justice for every single person undocumented and a citizen who have been stopped, who has been beat in this city and across the country by an agency of terror.”⁹

• “[T]he President deploys a National Guard to criminalize and terrorize us.”¹⁰

Rep. Ramirez then introduced “the one, the only Mayor Johnson”, who responded “Wow, you’re making me blush, congresswoman.” Then Mayor Johnson told the crowd:

• “We’re at a moment in which we have a federal government that has not only trampled on our Constitution, but it has declared war on American cities and particularly Chicago.”¹¹

• “The illegal deployment of the National Guard in our city and the escalation of ICE raids do nothing to keep our young people safe.”¹²

• “We will not allow fear and hatred to tear apart our communities and families.”¹³

Finally, at the No Kings demonstration in Chicago on October 18, Mayor Johnson proclaimed in a stentorian voice:

There are those in this country that have decided at the behest of this president to declare war on Chicago and American cities across this country. They have clearly decided that they want a re-match of the Civil War. … Donald Trump is using ICE as his private militarized occupying force. … We do not want troops in our cities. We will not allow our cities to be occupied.¹⁴

You might ask why I have given Illinois Governor JB Pritzker a free pass? Well, my colleague Andrew Arthur recently said everything about Governor Pritzker that needs to be said.

Judge Perry

Judge Perry wrote in her decision that:

• DHS sent a memorandum requesting “immediate and sustained assistance from the Department of War … in order to safeguard federal personnel, facilities, and operations in the State of Illinois.” … The memorandum claimed that “Federal facilities, including those directly supporting [ICE] … have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing lawful federal enforcement actions. These groups are actively aligned with designated domestic terrorist organizations and have sought to impede the deportation and removal of criminal noncitizens through violent protest, intimidation, and sabotage of federal operations.”

• ICE has reported to Broadview Police acts of vandalism like the slashing of tires on fifteen vehicles, the “keying” of ICE vehicles, and sugar being put in vehicles’ fuel tanks.

But Perry also noted that the Trump administration “report[s] significantly more [anti-DHS] violence in the Chicago area than the Broadview Police or [the Illinois State Police] ISP”. She wrote that:

Broadview Police are not aware of any occasion where an ICE vehicle was prevented from entering or exiting due to activity by protestors. … In the opinion of the Broadview Police Department and ISP, state and local law enforcement officers are able to maintain safety and control outside of the ICE Processing Center. … Similarly, the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department has indicated that his officers have responded [to] unrest involving ICE in order to maintain public safety.

Judge Perry concluded that “with respect to [the Trump administration’s] declarants’ descriptions of the ICE Processing Center protests, the version of the facts set forth in these affidavits are impossible to align with the perspectives of state and local law enforcement presented by Plaintiffs”. Thus, she “therefore must make a credibility assessment as to which version of the facts should be believed”.

Her conclusion? “While the Court does not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable.”

Why did she take the plaintiffs’ word for it rather than the Trump administration’s?

First:

Two of [the administration’s] declarations refer to arrests made … of individuals who were carrying weapons and assaulting federal agents. … But neither declaration discloses that federal grand juries have refused to return an indictment against at least three of those individuals, which equates to a finding of a lack of probable cause that any crime occurred. … In addition to demonstrating a potential lack of candor by these affiants, it also calls into question their ability to accurately assess the facts.

Second:

• Similar declarations were provided by these same individuals in … a case which challenged the constitutionality of ICE’s response to protestors at the Broadview ICE Processing Center. In issuing its TRO against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the court in that case found that the plaintiffs would likely be able to show that ICE’s actions have violated protestors’ First Amendment right to be free from retaliation while engaged in newsgathering, religious exercise, and protest, and Fourth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force. … [I] do[] note a troubling trend of [the administration’s] declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence. This indicates to the Court both bias and lack of objectivity.

• Some of what [DHS] complain[s] about is, while aggravating, insulting, or unpleasant, also Constitutionally protected.

Third, “The lens through which we view the world changes our perception of the events around us. Law enforcement officers who go into an event expecting ‘a sh[-]tshow’ are much more likely to experience one than those who go into the event prepared to de-escalate it.”

I wonder if Judge Perry ever considered the possibility that the grand juries refused to return indictments because they may have been influenced by the view of Mayors Thompson and Johnson and Rep. Ramirez? Consider the concern expressed by the Supreme Court in its 1895 decision in In re Debs that:

If all the inhabitants of a State, or even a great body of them, should combine to obstruct interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails, prosecutions for such offences had in such a community would be doomed in advance to failure. And if the certainty of such failure was known, and the national government had no other way to enforce the freedom of interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails than by prosecution and punishment for interference therewith, the whole interests of the nation in these respects would be at the absolute mercy of a portion of the inhabitants of that single State.

I wonder if Judge Perry ever considered the possibility that the Broadview Police and the Illinois State Police might have reported significantly less anti-DHS violence than did DHS because the lens through which they view the world has been shaped by the extreme views and irresponsible rhetoric of their ultimate bosses, Mayor Thompson and Governor Pritzker.

Consider the reprehensible actions of Chicago Police Department leadership, presumably at the behest of Mayor Johnson or his cronies, as reported by Greg Wehner, Bill Melugin, Matt Finn, and Michael Tobin for Fox News, regarding the department’s actions after receiving “calls for help from [DHS] agents who were rammed and surrounded by protesters”. Wehner, Melugin, Finn, and Tobin wrote on October 5 that:

• Fox News obtained an internal dispatch revealing that Chicago police officers were ordered by their chief of patrol not to respond after Border Patrol agents called for help … according to multiple federal and Chicago law enforcement sources.

• The message instructed officers not to respond to a … ramming on the southwest side of the city in which an armed woman was shot and agents were boxed in and surrounded.

Mind you, this was not just any armed woman. She was “a U.S. citizen identified as Marimar Martinez” who had “allegedly doxxed agents and posted online, ‘Hey to all my gang let’s f— those motherf—— up, don’t let them take anyone.’”

To be fair, the Chicago Police Department “disputed claims that officers failed to respond, saying they were on scene to manage safety and document the incident”:

• “To clarify misinformation currently circulating, CPD officers did in fact respond to the shooting scene involving federal authorities on Saturday to maintain public safety and traffic control,” the department said.

• “The [CPD] will always respond to anyone who is being attacked or is under the threat of physical harm[.] For incidents involving federal immigration enforcement, CPD supervisors will respond to the scene and determine the appropriate course of action in accordance with City law.”

I am tempted to conclude that the leadership of Mayor Johnson’s police department phrased its response in this peculiar manner because it doesn’t believe that “maintain[ing] public safety and traffic control” necessitates coming to the aid of DHS officers in peril.

In any event, senior Chicago police sources told Fox News the department’s statement was “false”, “COVER THEIR A- – BULLS- -T!!” A source explained that:

• The IRT team was called off while they were en route to handle the shooting — the ETs were told to disregard.”

• “[T]he lieutenant … was obviously given instructions and changed what he initially said from ‘go there’ to ‘do not go there.’”

• The source said officers had responded but had to leave because of the order.

It is one thing for a state or locality to refuse on some policy basis to actively assist DHS with enforcement of our immigration laws. It is quite another entirely for its police department to fail to come to the aid of fellow law enforcement officers in danger. The inaction of the Chicago Police Department will live in infamy.

Yes, Judge Perry, this is what can happen to a politicized police department.

But Judge Perry had more important things in mind. She wrote that:

[T]he significance of the public’s interest in having only well-trained law enforcement officers deployed in their communities and avoiding unnecessary shows of military force in their neighborhoods cannot be overstated. Chicago’s history of strained police-community relations, which has stemmed in part from lack of police training and inappropriate uses of force, is well-documented. … To add to this milieu militarized actors unfamiliar with local history and context whose goal is “vigorous enforcement” of the law … is not in the community’s interest.

Vigorous enforcement of the law is not in the community’s interest!? Exactly what community might Judge Perry be talking about?

Are Mayors Katrina Thompson and Brandon Johnson Taking a Page Out of the Playbooks of Govs. Orval Faubus and George Wallace?

I wonder if Mayors Thompson and Johnson ever considered how the fate of this nation could have been altered had Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson shared their repulsion at the thought of federal military forces entering communities to ensure the enforcement of federal law and thus not sent in the military to protect black citizens from mob violence during the 1950s and 1960s?

Elizabeth Goitein and Joseph Nunn have written for the Brennan Center for Justice, which “[i]nspired by [iconic liberal Supreme Court] Justice William J. Brennan Jr.’s devotion to core democratic freedoms … works to strengthen democracy, end mass incarceration, and protect liberty and security”, that:

• [In 1957, t]hree years after the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine that underpinned racial segregation, the governor of Arkansas [Orval Faubus] deployed the Arkansas National Guard to stop nine African-American students from enrolling at Central High School in the state capital of Little Rock. President Dwight Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act, federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered it to stand down, and deployed the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to protect the students as they attended class.

• In the fall of 1962, James Meredith became the first African-American student to be admitted to the University of Mississippi. At the end of September, President John F. Kennedy staged several hundred U.S. Marshals, Bureau of Prisons guards, and Border Patrol agents to protect Meredith as he enrolled. On September 30, a violent, heavily armed mob of white students, residents of Oxford, and others — incited by the governor of Mississippi [Ross Barnett] — besieged Meredith, the federal agents, and multiple officials inside campus buildings. The siege continued through the night, with two people murdered and more than 300 injured, until several thousand federal troops deployed by President Kennedy under the Insurrection Act arrived to suppress the riot.

• [In 1963, t]he governor of Alabama [George Wallace], with an escort of state police, sought to physically block two African-American students, James Hood and Vivian Malone, from enrolling at the University of Alabama. At the request of the U.S. Marshals escorting Hood and Malone, President Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act, federalized the Alabama National Guard, and deployed it to protect the students. Confronted by the commander of the Guardsmen, the governor finally backed down and allowed Hood and Malone to register.

• [In 1963, t]he governor of Alabama [George Wallace] had deployed the Alabama National Guard to stop African-American students from attending all-white public schools across many cities in Alabama. President Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act, federalized the Alabama Guard, and ordered it stand down.

• [In 1965,] President Lyndon Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act and federalized the Alabama National Guard, ordering them to protect civil rights marchers as they traveled from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

Mayors Thompson and Johnson might also consider the words of advice that President Eisenhower’s Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. gave to President Eisenhower during the Little Rock Crisis regarding whether to deploy federal troops. Brownell wrote in his opinion on the “President’s Power to Use Federal Troops to Suppress Resistance to Enforcement of Federal Court Orders – Little Rock Arkansas” that:

• Whenever interference and obstruction to enforcement of law exists, and domestic violence is interposed to frustrate the judicial process, it is the primary and mandatory duty of the authorities of the State to suppress the violence and to remove any obstruction to the orderly enforcement of law. This same duty fully exists where the domestic violence is interposed in opposition to the enforcement of Federal law rather than to the local law of the State.

• Acts of violent or forcible resistance to Federal law disrupt peace and order in the State and violate State law. It is the duty of State officers in such circumstances to suppress the disorders in a manner which will not nullify and will permit the effectuation of State and Federal law.

  When State officers refuse or fail to discharge their duty in this respect, it becomes the responsibility of the national Government, through the Chief Executive, to dispel any such forcible resistance to Federal law. Otherwise, lawlessness would be permitted to exist for lack of any counter-acting force.

And Judge Perry might want to read this part of Brownell’s opinion:

• I advised you that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages made it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in Little Rock by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings (10 U.S.C. 332). The facts upon which these conclusions were based were reported to you as they occurred, and included an account of the determined group of hundreds of men and women bent upon overpowering the local peace officers, the several incidents of violence with their very real and discernible trend toward a larger-scale inflammatory assault, the action of the Mayor and local authorities in ordering the withdrawal of the Negro students so as to appease the unruly mob, the admission of local authorities that such peace officers as they could command were unable to cope with the disorderly assemblage, and the indifference or refusal of the Governor of the States to supply a sufficient force to quell the lawless movement.

• Success of the unlawful assemblage in Little Rock inevitably would have led to mob rule, and a probable breakdown of law and order in an ever-increasing area. When a local and State Government is unable or unwilling to meet such a threat, the Federal Government is not impotent.

Would Judge Perry conclude that Brownell had failed to provide sufficient evidence that President Eisenhower could utilize the Insurrection Act based on the impracticability of enforcing the laws of the United States in Little Rock by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings? Based on her decision, I shudder to think. After all, Little Rock only involved a group of hundreds of men and women bent upon overpowering local peace officers and only involved several incidents of violence.

End Notes

¹ State v. Trump, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201113 (25-cv-12174).

² Illinois v. Trump, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26947.

³ State v. Trump.

⁴ Illinois v. Trump.

⁵ Yes, I know that the song was written by Nick Lowe and originally recorded by Lowe’s group Brinsley Schwarz.

⁶ Video beginning at 2:58.

⁷ Id. beginning at 4:18.

⁸ Id. beginning at 5:12.

⁹ Id. beginning at 6:19.

¹⁰ Id. beginning at 7:48.

¹¹ Id. beginning at 9:11.

¹² Id. beginning at 11:11.

¹³ Id. beginning at 12:51.

¹⁴ Video beginning at 4:26.