FILE PHOTO: National Guard members walk at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Broadview facility in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., October 9, 2025. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo
President Donald Trump suffered a legal blow on Thursday, after a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to lift a lower court order that prohibited him from sending in the National Guard to Chicago. Judges Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, and Amy St. Eve — appointed respectively by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump — found the district court had not erred in disputing that Trump was actually combating a rebellion, as the law allows for.
"The district court provided substantial and specific reasons for crediting the plaintiffs’ declarations over the administration’s, and the record includes ample support for that decision. Given the record support, the findings are not clearly erroneous," said the opinion.
The reaction on social media was immediate, as a number of pro-Trump accounts melted down over the judges and demanded the Supreme Court step in, or even for Trump to outright ignore the ruling. Many other observers, however, lauded the decision.
"Major setback for Trump National Guard moves as 7th Circuit declines to disturb block on deployment in Illinois," wrote Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein. "Judges Rovner, Hamilton, St. Eve (GHWBush/Obama/Trump) see no rebellion permitting use of Guard by prez."
"WOW. A unanimous per curiam (meaning no named author) panel of the 7th Circuit, made up of a Bush appointee, an Obama appointee, and a Trump appointee, decline to step in and block a lower court order barring the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago!" wrote American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a frequent critic of Trump's immigration policy.
"Wow. Look at that panel," wrote Lawfare editor Roger Parloff.
"A protest is not an act of rebellion even if it has some sporadic violent elements. The Second Amendment guarantees the freedom. No Kings!!" wrote Wall Street investor Evaristus Ondinikaeze.
"Hopefully 9th Circuit does the same for Portland," wrote Margaret Harbaugh.
"As anyone could determine at a glance," wrote veteran and former security consultant Jens Johansson. "But the administration is going to continue to [label] political dissent as illegal and a cause for violent enforcement until all opposition has been silenced."