U.S. District Judge April Perry on Monday tossed out the State of Illinois and City of Chicago's lawsuit over the federal government's move to federalize and deploy National Guard troops to the Chicago area, saying the controversy has effectively evaporated.
Perry ruled that conditions on the ground have shifted so much since last fall that there is no live dispute left for her court to decide, and that she cannot issue what would amount to an advisory opinion on deployment orders that are no longer in effect.
The development was first reported by the Chicago Tribune, which quotes Perry emphasizing that she "cannot issue advisory opinions" on now-demobilized orders and noting that "things in Chicago are calm." According to the Tribune, the dismissal effectively closes the district court chapter of a legal fight that has already wound its way through appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Backstory: How the Case Arrived in Court
The lawsuit landed in federal court in October 2025, shortly after the administration announced memos to federalize National Guard units from Illinois and Texas as part of an immigration-enforcement effort dubbed "Operation Midway Blitz." State and city officials argued the move trampled on local authority and pushed the Guard into domestic policing.
After a daylong hearing on Oct. 9, 2025, Perry issued a temporary restraining order that halted any deployment while the case played out. Her October opinion and order, which laid out the early legal framework of the dispute, are part of the public record and can be read on Justia.
Supreme Court Rebuff and Appeals
The administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief, seeking to lift the lower court's restraints. On Dec. 23, 2025, the justices declined to stay Perry's order, concluding at that preliminary stage that the government had not shown statutory authority to federalize the Guard for domestic law-enforcement work.
The unsigned order is posted on the court's website at the Supreme Court.
Why the Case Was Dismissed
On Feb. 6, federal defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case had become moot because the Guard units had been demobilized and there were no concrete plans to send them back. In their view, the controversy had ended the moment the troops stood down.
Plaintiffs pushed back, pointing to public statements from the White House that, they said, left the door open to future mobilizations and kept the dispute alive. The filings and procedural back-and-forth are laid out in the civil-litigation record at the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.
Legal Implications
Attorneys watching the case say the dismissal underscores how reluctant federal courts are to hand down advisory rulings, and how forcefully the mootness doctrine kicks in when the real-world conditions that sparked a lawsuit fade away.
The order does not prevent Illinois or Chicago from appealing, nor does it stop them from returning to court if federal officials again move to federalize and redeploy the Guard, according to the Chicago Tribune.
For now, the ruling means federally controlled Guard troops will not be sent to patrol Chicago streets, something city and state leaders are treating as a win for local authority. Federal lawyers, for their part, have signaled they may explore other legal avenues, leaving open the possibility that the broader constitutional fight over domestic troop deployments could return to the spotlight.
