Hold onto your hats, folks—Justice Samuel Alito just dropped a blistering dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision to halt President Donald Trump’s plan to send the National Guard into Chicago, as Fox News reports.

In a 6-3 ruling on Tuesday, the Court temporarily stopped Trump from deploying about 300 National Guard members to protect federal officers amidst heated protests in the Windy City.

This decision has sparked a fierce debate over presidential authority and state sovereignty, and it’s worth dissecting from every angle.

Trump’s Bold Move Meets Resistance

This saga began when Trump invoked a seldom-used federal law to federalize National Guard troops, claiming that agitators in Chicago were obstructing and even assaulting ICE officers.

The administration argued that Illinois’ Democratic leadership and local law enforcement weren’t doing enough to safeguard federal personnel, pushing for this drastic measure.

Illinois, however, pushed back hard, filing a lawsuit and insisting Trump hadn’t met the legal threshold to deploy such forces under federal law.

Supreme Court’s Majority Draws the Line

Lower courts sided with the state, blocking the deployment, and the Supreme Court upheld that stance, leaving Trump’s plan on ice for now.

The majority, in an unsigned order, clarified that “regular forces” meant the U.S. military, not civilian agencies like ICE, and found no justification for military intervention in Chicago.

They also flagged concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from domestic policing unless Congress explicitly allows it, hinting Trump’s move might cross a legal line.

Alito Fires Back with Sharp Critique

Enter Justice Alito, who, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, tore into the majority’s reasoning, calling their decision both “unwise” and “imprudent” in the face of real threats.

“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, hitting the nail on the head.

His frustration is palpable—why hamstring the president when federal personnel are at risk, especially when Illinois seems more focused on political games than practical safety?

Broader Implications and State Sovereignty

Alito also warned of broader consequences, noting Trump’s similar attempts in cities like California and Portland, Oregon, with Chicago being the furthest along in legal battles.

Illinois, meanwhile, claimed that a National Guard presence would irreparably harm its sovereign right to manage its own law enforcement, as their attorneys argued: “The planned deployment would infringe on Illinois’s sovereign interests in regulating and overseeing its own law enforcement activities.”

That sounds high-minded, but when federal officers are dodging threats, shouldn’t state pride take a backseat to securing their safety?