Well fuck me, didn't see THAT ruling coming. Maybe someone should check they've not come down with some severe illness, like a brain tumor or morals
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
310 points (99.1% liked)
News
37121 readers
1609 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They only ruled this way once the “mission” was over.
I expect this to be the plan to whitewash the SCROTUS when the option exists.
It’s also why they are delaying judgements and reversing stays with the shadow docket. So they can rule against future non-republican administrations on the same suits.
Are they going to have to make separate rulings for every city Trump wants to invade, or does this decision apply to all of them?
This ruling upholds the Circuit Court order barring the use of national guard forces specifically in Chicago.
A separate order was issued in the ninth circuit barring the use of national guard forces in Portland. That has been appealed and was waiting for this decision.
It’s unlikely the administration will prevail in lifting the order in Portland now that this decision was made against their favor.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was asking. I know that a lower court has also ruled that deploying them in DC was also illegal...pending appeal. And if I recall, they said the same thing about California...also still pending appeal, or something.
It really does seem like they're going to have to get the Super Court involved in every state, separately...even though the rulings are all based on the same arguments.
Well to be fair, SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on the merits yet. This decision just upholds the lower court’s TRO.
If the court grants cert for the actual case, we’d see some kind of precedent established. It’s very unlikely they’d rule narrowly and limit the scope to a single deployment since the administration’s argument is consistent across all of them.
Using national guard forces to protect federal buildings and employees because local law enforcement can’t or won’t
At some point, one of the PedoCon justices will make a statement about the kind of case they'd like to handle, and some MAGA law firm will craft a case with the proper language, and SCOTUS will approve it, and we'll all be under military control.
Same vibes as "Supreme Court recognizes Cherokee Nation as sovereign state"
Wow, you know Trump's reached the end of his rope when even his rubber stamp court runs out of ink!
This in no way represents a loss for Trump. This shit is chaff. Nothing more. His distraction was incredibly successful in not only its purpose, but in its ability to tie up courts and investigations into his childfucking.
Collectivity, we take the bait every fucking day. The peso-files are DAMNING. He is doing everything he can- both legal and illegal to keep that info from seeing light of day.
And it’s damn effective, because we can’t resist the bait.
Too little, too late, scotus. Who will listen to you protest now? Donald "immunity for official presidential acts" trump or Pete "suggesting troops disobey illegal orders is treason" Hegseth?
Maybe one of the liberal justices put a their gun on the table to start the negotiations
Careful with that. That will truly begin civil war and martial law. With the first round comes massive force. Tread carefully. This ain't no game.
Nah, I don't think any of them are capable of acting crazy enough to be a believable threat. Trump's just blown way past even the most patient & indulgent parent's limits & it's finally gotten to the point where they're embarrassed enough to actually... you know... PARENT.
My hypothesis is way more fun though
Can't argue that - would love to see it happen.
"Won't allow"
BWAAHAhahahaha ha ha ha. Oh. Oh, that's rich. Defunct group of judges who made a series of decisions that shit all over the law now indicate that someone can't do something because of the law that they have no physical power to enforce. Oh, thanks for the laugh, SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has the power to deputize their own agents in order to enforce it's rulings.
"John Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it" -- Trump, probably, if he was educated. But it'll probably be Stephen Miller saying that to himself right now.
That's odd.