Federal Judge IGNORES Violence — Protects These Perps

A Biden-appointed federal judge has blocked President Trump’s constitutional authority to deploy National Guard troops for immigration enforcement, setting up a major showdown over executive power and the federal government’s duty to enforce immigration law.

Story Overview

Judge April Perry issued a 14-day restraining order blocking Trump’s National Guard deployment to protect ICE facilities in Illinois
The ruling came after Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker previously called for “mass protests” and “disruption” against Republicans
Federal officials documented unprecedented violence against immigration enforcement, but the judge dismissed these concerns as “unreliable”
Trump administration plans to appeal the decision while other federal circuits show more deference to presidential authority

Biden Judge Overrules Presidential Authority

U.S. District Judge April Perry, appointed by Joe Biden, issued a temporary restraining order on October 9, 2025, blocking President Trump from deploying approximately 400 Texas National Guard troops to Illinois and federalizing 300 Illinois Guard members. The judge claimed she saw “no credible evidence of a rebellion” despite federal documentation of escalating violence against ICE operations. Perry’s ruling directly contradicts the administration’s assessment that Illinois has become a dangerous flashpoint for anti-immigration enforcement violence.

Governor Pritzker’s Role in Escalating Violence

The current crisis stems from inflammatory statements made by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker in April 2025, when he told Democratic activists: “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now. These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace.” Federal officials argue these comments directly contributed to the hostile environment requiring National Guard protection. Despite Pritzker’s role in inciting unrest, he now portrays himself as defending constitutional principles while characterizing lawful immigration enforcement as an “unconstitutional invasion.”

Federal Authority Under Attack

The Trump administration documented that “levels of violence against federal law enforcement executing their lawful duties have reached an unprecedented high” in Chicago, describing a “brazen new form of hostility” toward immigration enforcement. White House Advisor Stephen Miller emphasized that Guard troops would protect federal lives and property facing “constant criminal assault.” However, Judge Perry dismissed these documented threats as unreliable perceptions, effectively prioritizing state resistance over federal law enforcement safety.

Constitutional Crisis Over Immigration Enforcement

This case represents one of the biggest legal clashes between federal executive authority and sanctuary state defiance. Judge Perry cited violations of the Posse Comitatus Act and constitutional amendments, but the administration argues it has clear statutory authority to deploy Guard troops when unable to execute federal laws with regular forces. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has shown more deference to presidential authority in similar cases, recognizing that the president “deserves extremely broad latitude” in protecting federal operations. The conflicting judicial approaches create dangerous uncertainty about the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law in hostile jurisdictions.

The 14-day restraining order provides a brief window for appeal, but the underlying issue threatens to undermine the constitutional principle that federal law is supreme. If partisan judges can block legitimate immigration enforcement based on subjective assessments of necessity, sanctuary jurisdictions effectively gain veto power over federal law. This judicial overreach not only endangers federal agents but emboldens those who seek to obstruct lawful deportation operations through organized resistance and violence.