The order was temporary until it went to the supreme court. The SC ruled in favor of Illinois, making the injunction permanent. I don’t understand negotiating after losing the case. AFAIK you settle “before” getting a ruling, not after losing.
The fight landed at the Supreme Court days after Perry issued a temporary restraining order barring Trump from deploying Guard troops to the state. That order has since been continued indefinitely pending the resolution of the lawsuit.
It’s not “permanent”; it’s “continued until the case is resolved.”
Please quote what you’re referring to. I read https://archive.ph/Cq2Mo before making my comment, and then again after reading yours, and still am not seeing anything related. They say:
Potential settlement terms were not discussed in court.
That article is slightly different and doesn’t contain this passage
“It seems to me what the city and state would want is some kind of concession saying these are the circumstances where the National Guard can’t be deployed,” said Paul Gowder, a professor with Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional issues. “I would be shocked if the federal government would grant that. … I wonder if by saying ‘we are open to settlement,’ what they really meant was, ‘we are open to the state not getting a final ruling.'”
Gowder also said it was difficult to see what the state of Illinois hoped to get out of negotiating with the Trump administration rather than pursuing a more permanent injunction. Having such a ruling in place makes it far easier and quicker to go into court with alleged violations, he said.
One possibility, Gowder said, is that the state lawyers feel the Supreme Court’s ruling, while limited, was favorable enough that it makes more sense to let it stick rather than have Trump force the issue by testing his authority in new ways, including invoking the Insurrection Act.
The state could also be taking a more conciliatory approach given Trump’s claims he was abandoning the effort to use the National Guard in Illinois and other states.
“Either way, it seems like it was a tactical decision for the state to make,” Gowder said.
I agree with you pretty much but the previous court ruling basically said Trump had to use the real military to protect federal assets not state national guards
So if states can make any deal at all that lets Trump use the national guard but not completely then maybe Trump will stick to it or at least not send in the real military (or try again to usurp control of the guard)
Edit to clarify: usurping the national guard is using the insurrection act, sending in the military would be trying to protect federal assets with or without the insurrection act (untested)
The order was temporary until it went to the supreme court. The SC ruled in favor of Illinois, making the injunction permanent. I don’t understand negotiating after losing the case. AFAIK you settle “before” getting a ruling, not after losing.
It’s not “permanent”; it’s “continued until the case is resolved.”
Read the article. They want to create a negotiated framework so Trump doesn’t try more violent military deployments instead
Please quote what you’re referring to. I read https://archive.ph/Cq2Mo before making my comment, and then again after reading yours, and still am not seeing anything related. They say:
And the word “framework” is not in the article.
That article is slightly different and doesn’t contain this passage
“It seems to me what the city and state would want is some kind of concession saying these are the circumstances where the National Guard can’t be deployed,” said Paul Gowder, a professor with Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional issues. “I would be shocked if the federal government would grant that. … I wonder if by saying ‘we are open to settlement,’ what they really meant was, ‘we are open to the state not getting a final ruling.'”
Gowder also said it was difficult to see what the state of Illinois hoped to get out of negotiating with the Trump administration rather than pursuing a more permanent injunction. Having such a ruling in place makes it far easier and quicker to go into court with alleged violations, he said.
One possibility, Gowder said, is that the state lawyers feel the Supreme Court’s ruling, while limited, was favorable enough that it makes more sense to let it stick rather than have Trump force the issue by testing his authority in new ways, including invoking the Insurrection Act.
The state could also be taking a more conciliatory approach given Trump’s claims he was abandoning the effort to use the National Guard in Illinois and other states.
“Either way, it seems like it was a tactical decision for the state to make,” Gowder said.
Thanks!
I agree with you pretty much but the previous court ruling basically said Trump had to use the real military to protect federal assets not state national guards
So if states can make any deal at all that lets Trump use the national guard but not completely then maybe Trump will stick to it or at least not send in the real military (or try again to usurp control of the guard)
Edit to clarify: usurping the national guard is using the insurrection act, sending in the military would be trying to protect federal assets with or without the insurrection act (untested)