As we reported on Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to stay a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. Many conservatives were outraged, complaining that since the advent of President Trump 2.0, judges at all levels have been doing everything in their power to kneecap his agenda. The Supreme Court has issued some favorable decisions along the way — but not this time.
One person who was not amused was a Supreme Court justice himself: Justice Samuel Alito, and his dissent on the case doesn’t mince words about his displeasure with what he sees as “unwise” and “imprudent” determinations made by the 6-3 majority. In addition, Alito — not one known to hold back on his opinions — thought it improperly took power from the executive branch:
The majority also did not give enough deference to Trump after the president found that agitators were hindering immigration officers and other federal personnel from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the National Guard needed to step in to help.
“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote.
Federalist journalist Shawn Fleetwood weighed in:
9/ Alito concludes his dissent by reaffirming the absurdity of SCOTUS overplaying its hand and “suggesting views on a host of important questions without adequate briefing, consideration, or explanation.” pic.twitter.com/MOH81WRdfs
— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) December 24, 2025
MORE: Supreme Court Blocks Immediate National Guard Deployment in Illinois, Leaves Future Deployment Open
What Alito Wrote: The Most Powerful Lines in the SCOTUS Decision Overturning Roe
The complex majority ruling said that the meaning of “regular forces” was the crucial matter at hand:
The Supreme Court’s majority said in an unsigned order that “regular forces” meant the U.S. military, not ICE or other civilian law enforcement officers. The majority said that since Trump had not identified any justification for using the regular military for domestic purposes in Chicago, there was no way to exhaust that option before using the National Guard.
Alito was joined in his dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, while Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote his own dissent. Alito had plenty more to say, writing that the president’s constitutional authority should be enough to justify the Guard in the Windy City:
3/ Alito points out that the majority does not explain why the president’s inherent constitutional powers are “not sufficient” in these types of situations. pic.twitter.com/MHriVZ3sCF
— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) December 24, 2025
Alito wrote:
On top of all this, the Court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.