A judge has blocked the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area for two weeks, concluding that there is no substantial evidence of a 'danger of rebellion' in Illinois.

This ruling represents a significant victory for Democratic leaders in Illinois and Chicago, who have engaged in heated exchanges with President Donald Trump over the proposed military presence in urban areas.

U.S. District Judge April Perry announced her decision from the bench, though she did not elaborate on the specifics of the ruling. The lawsuit was initiated by Illinois and Chicago in response to the planned deployment of National Guard members.

Before the ruling, some troops were already stationed at an immigration facility in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago, which has been a site of protests and occasional clashes with immigration officials.

Judge Perry criticized the Department of Homeland Security's narrative, suggesting it stems from Trump's 'animus toward Illinois elected officials.' She expressed doubts regarding the characterizations made by federal authorities regarding the situation in Broadview.

In court, Illinois officials denounced the deployment as unnecessary and illegal, arguing that protests at the ICE facility had not halted federal enforcement actions. Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago's local leadership have strongly opposed using the National Guard.

Trump has characterized Chicago as a 'lawless hellhole,' despite data indicating a decline in crime rates there. He has indicated willingness to deploy military troops if needed, claiming that the National Guard's mission is to protect federal properties and law enforcement.

Judge Perry cautioned that the president's deployment powers are not unlimited, referencing the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

Heavy public attendance at the courthouse led to an overflow room being opened for those wanting to view the hearing. Officials and community members alike have been closely following this case, given its implications for federal-state relations and civil liberties.