Featured

Illinois Takes a Page From the California/Oregon Playbook As Two Judges Issue National Guard TROs – RedState

It’s not terribly surprising, the rulings that issued forth from the Northern District of Illinois on Thursday: two cases, each challenging the Trump administration’s federalization/deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois; similar to challenges filed in California and, more recently, Oregon. 





First, there is the case styled Chicago Headline Club v. Noem. This one challenges the use of federal law enforcement in and around the Broadview, Illinois, ICE facility — particularly as it relates to “journalists,” but also as to protesters — asserting that the government is violating the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Fourth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs in that case asked for a broad array of relief and, in a 12-page opinion/order issued Thursday morning, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis obliged.

The temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Ellis sets forth a lengthy list of all the actions federal law enforcement is prohibited from taking in the Northern District of Illinois, as well as requiring all uniformed federal law enforcement personnel to “have visible identification (for which a unique recognizable alphanumeric identifier sequence will suffice) affixed to their uniforms or helmets and prominently displayed, including when wearing riot gear.”


RELATED: War of Words Heats Up Between Pritzker, Trump As Guard Arrives in Chicago—’You Should Be in Jail!’





New: 9th Circuit Presses Pause on TRO Issued by Oregon Judge re: National Guard


Next, there is the case styled State of Illinois v. Trump, in which the State of Illinois and City of Chicago challenge Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s October 4th invocation of “10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and bring under Department of Defense control up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, over the objection of the Governor of Illinois (“Federalization Order”), and, on October 5th, another up to 400 National Guard from the State of Texas to deploy into Chicago (“Texas Mobilization Order”).” In that case, Judge April Perry issued a brief two-page TRO on Thursday afternoon that provides, in pertinent part, that:

Defendants, their officers, agents, assigns entered, and all persons acting in concert with them, are temporarily enjoined from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois. 

The administration has already filed a notice of appeal in the second case, so the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will soon be noodling on that. I expect they’ll also file one in the first case, too.





In both instances, the judges, like their counterparts in California and Oregon, dutifully found the administration to have exceeded its authority. The 9th Circuit is currently entertaining challenges to the California and Oregon ruling, and we’ll continue to monitor all the cases to see what they — and eventually the 7th Circuit — do with these district court orders. (And, ultimately, we’ll likely see one or more of these cases land before the Supreme Court.)

There’s no way to predict for certain how these cases will ultimately shake out, but if I were placing bets on them, my money would be on the administration.


Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.



Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 82