I don't understand, what is there to settle? They lost. Fuck off. I guess we'll find out January 28th what bullshit they are peddling.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2026
70 points (97.3% liked)
News
34263 readers
1886 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Isn't this about a temporary injunction?
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."
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:
Potential settlement terms were not discussed in court.
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)
Wouldn't put it past them to try to not pay the national guard for their deployment now; its probably far too late for that, but its very much in his style to try.
Don't settle anything, make them explain themselves in open court, and harshly prosecute anyone who commits perjury.
Yeah, fuck a settlement. It's not about money; this needs to be a statement piece.