Defending the Constitution: My Supreme Court Brief on Presidential Overreach in Illinois & Chicago v. Trump

November 3, 2025

Today, I filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the United States Supreme Court in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. State of Illinois and City of Chicago (Case No. 25A443). This case involves a direct challenge to President Trump's attempt to federalize the Illinois National Guard and deploy National Guard units from Texas and other states into Illinois and the City of Chicago.

What Happened and What's at Stake

The dispute began when President Trump ordered the federalization of Illinois's National Guard and attempted to send Guard units from Texas and other states into Illinois, apparently for purposes such as crowd control, facility protection, and access control in Chicago. Illinois and the City of Chicago sued, and both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the President, blocking these actions. The Department of Justice has now asked the Supreme Court to stay (pause) those lower court orders and allow the military deployment to proceed while the case continues.

My brief supports Illinois and Chicago, arguing that the Supreme Court should deny the stay and uphold the lower courts' decisions blocking this unprecedented military action.

The Legal Arguments: Why This Is Plainly Unconstitutional

Let me be clear from the outset: this is not a close legal call. The President's actions in this case represent plainly illegal executive overreach that falls outside the constitutional authority vested in the presidency. Here's why:

1. The President Lacks Statutory Authority

Federal law at 10 U.S.C. § 12406 permits the President to federalize state National Guard units only under three narrow circumstances:

• Invasion

• Rebellion

• Inability to execute federal law with regular forces

None of these conditions exist in Illinois or Chicago. As the district court found and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, routine protests do not constitute a rebellion, and federal law continues to be executed without interruption. Civil law enforcement in Illinois remains fully capable of maintaining order.

Even more problematic, Congress has never authorized the President to deploy one state's National Guard into another state for domestic law enforcement purposes. The attempt to send Texas Guard units into Illinois violates the sovereignty of both states simultaneously.

2. Youngstown: Presidential Power at Its "Lowest Ebb"

In the landmark 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court rejected President Truman's claim of inherent authority to seize steel mills during the Korean War. Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion established the framework courts still use today: when a President acts against Congress's express will, "his power is at its lowest ebb."

That's exactly what's happening here. Congress has set precise statutory conditions for federalizing the National Guard. Congress has also enacted the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using the military for domestic law enforcement. The President is acting directly contrary to both laws—this is Youngstown Category Three, where presidential power is at its weakest and most constrained.

3. The Posse Comitatus Act Prohibits Military Law Enforcement

Once federalized, National Guard members become part of the regular armed forces under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) explicitly prohibits using the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force to execute civilian laws unless Congress specifically authorizes it.

Using military personnel for "crowd control," "facility protection," or "access control" in Chicago is civilian law enforcement by another name. Congress has not authorized this use of military force, making it illegal under federal statute.

4. The Tenth Amendment Protects State Sovereignty

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. One of the most fundamental state powers is the police power—the authority to maintain order within state borders.

Forcing Illinois to accept military units from Texas and other states, against the Governor's will, overrides state sovereignty entirely. This isn't just a violation of statutory law—it's a direct assault on the constitutional structure of federalism that divides power between state and federal governments.

5. The Framers Explicitly Warned Against This

The Founders viewed standing armies in peacetime as tyranny. The Declaration of Independence listed as a central grievance against King George III that he "Kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our Legislatures."

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46 that state militias are "the ultimate guardians of their own liberties." Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 29 that militias "ought to be under the immediate control of the States." The Constitution's structure was designed specifically to prevent what the President is attempting here: using military force as an instrument of executive coercion against the states themselves.

Why I Filed This Brief: An Oath to the Constitution

This is not political activism. This is not about party politics or personal views about any politician. This is about the Constitution and the rule of law.

As an attorney licensed to practice law, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a U.S. Navy veteran who deployed abroad in service of this country, I took that same oath. Those oaths don't have expiration dates, and they don't change based on which political party controls the White House or Congress.

The President's actions in this case—and in numerous other cases currently before the courts—represent executive overreach that is not even legally debatable. When the law is this clear and the constitutional violations this obvious, remaining silent would be a betrayal of my oath as an officer of the court.

I filed this brief to provide the Supreme Court with a clear, clinical, objective legal analysis during what many Americans recognize as a constitutional crisis. The Court needs to hear from citizens and legal professionals who are committed to defending the Constitution above all partisan considerations.

This Transcends Politics

Let me be absolutely clear: this is not left-wing or right-wing political activism. This is objective, clinical legal work intended to assist the Court in reaching the correct legal decision during a challenging time when it feels like if we don't act within our legal powers as citizens, we could lose the Constitution that has kept us free.

While our Constitution is not perfect, it remains probably the best framework for self-governance ever drafted anywhere in the world. It has preserved American liberty for nearly 250 years through its careful design: separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism that divides authority between state and national governments.

But that preservation isn't automatic. Every generation of Americans must actively defend constitutional limits on government power. No matter what politician is in office and no matter what political party controls the government, we must zealously guard our Constitution to remain free.

A Stark Reality Check

We need to remind our politicians—including President Trump—that they work for us, not the other way around. In our constitutional system, public officials are servants of the people, bound by law and subject to constitutional constraints. No person, including the President, is above the law. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle repeatedly, including as recently as 2020 in Trump v. Vance.

Looking at this situation objectively and clinically, stripped of partisan politics, the pattern is unsustainable for our country. When we examine the historical record of other nations around the globe, it has rarely turned out well for countries that empowered political leadership that decided to subvert and ignore their constitutions. This administration appears to engage in constitutional violations on at least a weekly basis. If this continues unchecked, we will lose the constitutional republic our Founders designed and our ancestors defended.

A Call for Peaceful, Lawful Action

As Americans, we need to unite—left, right, and center—and use our First Amendment rights peacefully and lawfully to demand accountability. We need to move Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty and impeach and convict President Trump and any co-conspirators who have violated the Constitution and federal law since this administration returned to office in January 2025.

This isn't about partisan advantage. This is about the survival of constitutional government. Take the politics out of it. Look at the situation objectively. Ask yourself: can our system of self-governance survive if the President can simply ignore statutory limits on his power and override constitutional protections of state sovereignty whenever he wishes?

The answer is no. That path leads to authoritarianism, not constitutional democracy.

The Principles We Must Defend

The brief I filed makes clear that the President's claimed authority finds no support in the Constitution or federal law:

• 10 U.S.C. § 12406 provides no textual basis for domestic military occupation absent invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute laws with regular forces

• The Posse Comitatus Act forbids using the military for civilian law enforcement

• The Tenth Amendment reserves to states the power to preserve order within their borders

• The Framers' design specifically prevented standing armies from being used as instruments of executive power against the people

These aren't abstract principles. They reflect hard-won lessons from our Founding. The Framers knew that standing armies quartered among the people erode liberty. They designed a federal system where state militias would serve as checks on national power—not as tools of executive coercion against the states themselves.

Why This Matters for Every American

If the Supreme Court were to approve this action, it would discard the Framers' wisdom and dissolve the very constitutional boundaries that preserve our Republic. It would establish that the President can deploy military forces domestically without meeting statutory requirements, override state sovereignty at will, and use the military for civilian law enforcement despite explicit congressional prohibition.

That precedent would be catastrophic for constitutional governance. It would effectively create an elected monarch with military power to enforce his will on states and cities across America.

This also dishonors the courageous men and women of our armed forces. These patriots did not volunteer to serve as political pawns or instruments of partisan intimidation. They swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution—the same Constitution this deployment violates. They deserve leadership that respects their service and keeps them out of hyper-partisan abuses of power.

Moving Forward Together

The Supreme Court now faces a critical decision. My brief urges the Court to deny the Department of Justice's motion for a stay and uphold the lower courts' injunctions blocking this unconstitutional military deployment.

But the Court's decision, while important, is not the end of our civic responsibility. All Americans who believe in constitutional government must speak up, engage peacefully and lawfully in the political process, and demand that our elected representatives fulfill their oaths of office.

This is not sustainable. History is watching. The Constitution demands our defense.

Our freedom depends on it.

About Corey J. Biazzo, Esq.

Corey J. Biazzo is a civil litigation attorney, author, and U.S. Navy veteran. He has represented clients in constitutional cases including Hallandale Plaza, LLC v. New Tropical Car Wash, LLC, where the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision on due process grounds. He is the author of Florida Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment (2nd Ed. 2025) and has filed multiple briefs before the United States Supreme Court. He practices law in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any client, organization, or institution.

Read the Full Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A443/383311/20251103095556145_Chicago%20Guard%20Case%20Brief%20Draft%201.pdf

Contact: For media inquiries or questions about constitutional law matters, please contact our office at (703) 297-5777 or corey@biazzolaw.com.