Federal Judge Allows Trump to Deploy National Guard to Chicago After Agents Attacked

I Stand for Freedom ^ | 10/08/2025 | Noah Stanton

[goodnesswins]

Now...let’s see what happens in Portland

[Mouton]

Send they reinforced with Apache gunships

[Resolute Conservative]

Ha, poor mayor doofus...

[alternatives?]

The governor lets the IRS employees do their job but not ICE employees. What does that tell you American citizens?

[Texas Eagle]

Allow this, b*tch.

[rktman]

Oh, thanks your judgeship.

[adorno]

It took attacks against federal agents for a judge to allow Trump to send the national guard to Chicago.

But it was okay with the judge to allow the huge amount of crimes to the citizens of Chicago?

Maybe we need to have federal agents permanently assigned to blue cities, and then have them attacked, in order to get automatic judge orders to allow the federal government to come in and ‘fix’ the problems.

[shelterguy]

“”””””allows””””””” ********DRINK********

[Spok]

The resistance to federal troops is absolute proof that the Democrats want to destroy our cities and, in the long run, America.

[SaxxonWoods]

Excellent.

[Big Red Badger]

God Bless TEXAS!

[Texas Eagle]

Amen, bro.

[JBW1949]

“A federal judge allowed Trump to deploy 200 Texas National Guard soldiers to Chicago this week.”

He could not stop him anyway....

[PIF]

Apache gunships
—

They may need them with 110,000 gang members in town. But would be great practice with FPV drones with explosives.

[ansel12]

This is how the feds used to protect law enforcement making arrests, this is 1960s Detroit.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Funny side-line...
When the story ISN’T about gun-control the media uses the term “semi-automatic weapon”.

As opposed to the ultimate gun to grab, an AR-15.

[central_va]

The bros got em a nice T-bird.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Can the Federal Government Revoke Statehood?

No, the federal government cannot revoke a state's statehood and revert it to territory status, even in cases of insurrection. The U.S. Constitution provides no mechanism for such an action, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White (1869) established that statehood is permanent and indissoluble once a state joins the Union, with the federal government unable to unilaterally alter a state's status in this way. The Union is described as perpetual, and even during rebellion or secession attempts, a state remains legally part of the United States, as was the case with Confederate states during the Civil War.

Federal Powers to Address Insurrection

Instead of revoking statehood, the Constitution empowers the federal government to address insurrection through other means:

• Article IV, Section 4: Requires the United States to guarantee each state a republican form of government and protect against domestic violence (including insurrection), which can involve federal intervention to restore order but not the dissolution of statehood.
• Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255): Allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellions or enforce federal law, as seen in historical uses like the Civil Rights era or the Whiskey Rebellion, but this does not extend to revoking statehood.
• Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: Disqualifies individuals who engage in insurrection from holding office, which can limit the influence of rebels within a state's government but does not affect the state's overall status.

Historical Precedent

Historical precedents from the Reconstruction era further illustrate this:

Event	Description
Post-Civil War Reconstruction	Southern states were placed under military rule and required to meet conditions (like ratifying the 14th Amendment) for full congressional representation, but their statehood was never revoked—they were treated as states that had never legally left the Union.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

No U.S. state has ever had its statehood revoked, and legal analyses confirm there is no constitutional process for doing so without the state's consent (and even then, it's debated and untested). Attempts to interpret Article V (protecting states' equal suffrage in the Senate) as allowing non-consensual revocation have been rejected in scholarly and legal discussions, as demoting a state would violate this guarantee.

[liberalh8ter]

Federal judge didn’t allow the President anything. The President was in his lane the whole time.