Statement on Supreme Court ruling on National Guard deployments to U.S. cities

This statement is in response to breaking news. Please contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the scholars.

Following the Supreme Court’s newly issued ruling on the federalization and deployment of the National Guard in Illinois, R Street Institute criminal justice and civil liberties scholars Lisel Petis and Sarah Anderson offered the following comment:

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that the president cannot deploy federal troops on American soil without limits. Despite White House claims, no executive power is above judicial oversight, a core principle of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Executive power, even in the context of public safety enforcement, must be anchored in statute.

“The ruling also provides important clarity on the constitutional limits of federalizing and deploying the National Guard over a governor’s objection. It sets a precedent that will shape not only the use of troops in Illinois, but also in Oregon and other states threatened with similar actions: domestic military deployments require a firm legal foundation and respect for the jurisdiction of state and local officials.

When military-style forces enter our cities under the guise of law enforcement, the line between soldiers and police blurs—and that risks undermining the legitimacy of both. Short-term shows of force are no substitute for effective state and local law enforcement, community trust, thorough investigations, prosecutions, and sustained public safety investments. The Court’s ruling reinforces that the rule of law, and not raw executive power, governs how we protect American streets. We need policing that reinforces civic norms and engagement—not military occupations that erode our nation’s cherished values.”