'Hugely consequential': Experts say Supreme Court just wrecked Trump's plans

[LetMyPeopleVote]

I admit that I was surprised by this ruling. SCOTUS may be waking up as to trump's misuse of the military.

'Hugely consequential': Experts say Supreme Court just wrecked Trump's plans

www.rawstory.com/supreme-cour...

— Michael Byron #Fella (@michaelby.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T02:30:22.213Z

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2674826050/

President Donald Trump got a rare and devastating blow at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as three right-wing justices joined with the three liberals to deny a stay of a lower court ruling that prevents him from federalizing the National Guard to deploy troops to Chicago — and said the administration is unlikely to prevail when the case is litigated on the merits.....

"The Supreme Court just agreed: President Trump violated the law by deploying the National Guard in Illinois," wrote New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin. "Proud to stand with @ILAttyGeneral [and] my colleagues in successfully opposing this unnecessary and unlawful deployment."

Yet another key analysis came from American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer who has frequently criticized the Trump administration's immigration policy.

"Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision. This is a case where [law professor] Marty Lederman's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the 'regular forces' issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. "The law Trump used to federalize the National Guard requires him to be 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The Court today agrees with Professor Lederman that 'regular forces' means the U.S. military, which used to be called 'the regulars.'"

"There are other laws which permit the President to call up the National Guard, the most famous of which is the Insurrection Act. But Trump has not invoked that law. Instead, he invoked a law which had strict prerequisites, which the Supreme Court ruled were not met," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. Additionally, "the majority finds at this stage that the President does not have inherent authority to deploy the military to protect ICE property, therefore allowing him to 'execute' the laws with the military. The majority says no."

[johnnyplankton]

1. They'll just send in more ICE goons...

[popsdenver]

24. Yea

or just send them to other cities.............

In addition to amassing an even bigger military presence off shore of some sovereign nation that has done NOTHING WRONG.....

[BlueMTexpat]

2. The Sick Fuck

is sending troops to New Orelans instead!

[Lonestarblue]

3. I would hope that the Supreme Court is waking up to their stupid decision to give Trump immunity for most actions.

He has interpreted that decision as him being above the law and free to do whatever he wants.

[stopdiggin]

4. well, yes. but a completely different issue (of course)

Last edited Thu Dec 25, 2025, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Here the administration argues that the president has the power and every right ..
(and nothing to do with immunity)

[Farmer-Rick]

33. Well immunity gives him the ability

To ignore any ruling the Supremes spit out without repercussions. What happens to the pedo if he violated all the rulings of the Supremes? The answer is Nothing. He has immunity to everything. No one can hold him accountable so why not just act out his every whim?

The only thing that remains that might hold the pedo accountable would be impeachment.

[stopdiggin]

36. non sequitur. that is not what 'immunity' means - nor what the court said.

Plus it is logically inconsistent. If you ignore court rulings (intentionally) - then immunity de facto has become an irrelevancy. It is only when you are constrained by the court and its rulings - that immunity means anything.

(And it should go without saying - that the court has NEVER said that the executive (or president) may ignore court rulings.)

[Farmer-Rick]

37. In all practical purpose it does

And once a court gives such sweeping immunity to an office holder, the court has given up their power to prosecute him. Then the office holder can take illegal action to ensure they stay in that office.

The supremes did not give him power to ignore their rulings but they gave up their power to prosecute him for ignoring their rulings and hold him accountable for ignoring their rulings while he is in office, as long as he cloaks it as official duties verbage. In all practical purpose he can claim he ignored them in his official capacity.

[sop]

5. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet on Trump's global tariffs.

[RussBLib]

7. If SCOTUS goes against Trump on the tariffs....

...I think the end of Trump is close at hand.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

[vapor2]

19. Promise?

[RussBLib]

20. no

I did say "I think...."

That orange fucker is going down, however (eventually! lol)

[popsdenver]

25. The Republican Party

would love to get rid of Trump. They just want to not lose all his Trumphumper 70 Million voters.
They would much rather install Steve Miller AND Russell Vought and have them use the 2025 document as a day by day game plan.......

[Mister Ed]

29. Yes. Although Steve Miller and Russell Vought already use Project 2025 as a day-to-day game plan...

...the GOP would rather have someone doing that directly, rather than having to do it through the unstable and erratic Trump.

[popsdenver]

35. BINGO........M.E.

[Akakoji]

31. Either way

We should do what we should keep our million cuts plan going.

[malaise]

6. This received very little coverage on M$Greedia

Yesterday and today.

It is HUGE

[NJCher]

8. on Wed., 12-12:30

MS NOW had a major segment on it.

[malaise]

12. True - but it was barely mentioned in Prime Time

I saw it when the news broke

🎄🎄🎄

[RussBLib]

22. 2 of the 3 major networks covered it

I record ABC, CBS, and NBC Nightly News on the DVR and (usually) play them back shortly after recording. I'm pretty sure that ABC and NBC covered it. ABC even previewed it, NBC just snuck the story in without a preview, and CBS didn't mention it at all. Not surprising, I guess, considering the recent stomach-turning events at CBS. Still, it was only "reported" with no editorial comment.

[malaise]

30. Precisely

Rec

🎄 :🎄

[Callie1979]

23. CBS News reported it online. Thats where I saw it

[Chellee]

9. In the dissent:

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch.

Just so you know who does believe that the military should be roaming the streets of American cities.

[Mysterian]

13. There you have it

Three traitors who want to overthrow democracy in the USA.

[ShazzieB]

15. I was sure that 2 of them were Alito and Thomas and was not disappointed there!

This means that the "supermajority" split 3-3 over this. It's good to see them not acting as a monolith for once.

[Martin68]

10. Good news.

[Bev54]

11. So I expect he will invoke the insurrection act very soon.

SCOTUS guided him on the way to go.

[live love laugh]

18. They always do -- for him.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. This decision could impact Trump's ability to deploy national guard to other states

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Cha]

17. Yeah, Psycho PEDO's fucking

agenda is Destroying America.. unless we STOPO him & Nazi boy Miller and Couch boy Vance.

[mountain grammy]

16. Uh oh..

now I fear for the 14th Amendment. They always follow a sane ruling with absolute insanity.

[lame54]

21. Negotiating time

[spanone]

26. K&R

[C Moon]

27. He needs to be stopped in regards to Greenland.

[JoseBalow]

28. As if he cares

Give me a break. Those douchebags gave him immunity, he'll keep doing whatever he wants. Who's going to stop him?

[OldBaldy1701E]

32. I know... weird, isn't it?

340.1 million people in this country and no one seems capable of stopping this crap.

I find that VERY telling...

VERY...

[JoseBalow]

34. "... no one seems capable of stopping this crap."

Which just emboldens him to keep doubling down.

We are in a death spiral, and nobody is stopping it. He won't stop on his own.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. Two late Trump court defeats 'could make a big difference in 2026': analyst

Maybe SCOTUS is not going to give trump everything he wants

Two late Trump court defeats 'could make a big difference in 2026': analyst

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2025-12-26T20:01:22.528Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-cpourt-loss/

Two significant legal setbacks for Donald Trump's administration are likely to have substantial implications as the president enters 2026.

According to former White House correspondent Brian Karem, the Trump administration's winning streak with the conservative Supreme Court ended abruptly when the court blocked the president's attempt to deploy the National Guard to cities on a whim and as a show of force. A separate defeat came when a federal court rejected administration efforts to revoke security clearances from Trump critics.....

The Supreme Court's ruling represented a rare rebuke of the administration. Trump had argued in an October appeal that violence directed at Department of Homeland Security agents conducting immigration enforcement operations in Chicago justified deploying the National Guard.

"The conservative Supreme Court didn’t buy it," he wrote.

According to the decision, "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." The court noted there was no legal basis for overriding the Posse Comitatus Act, which severely restricts the use of U.S. military forces within the United States.

[kentuck]

39. So, what does he do?

He spits in their faces and sends the National Guard to Louisiana.