Nicole Polisar
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2027
The Trump administration’s decision to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and National Guard troops in Chicago has sparked nationwide debate over the boundaries of lawful enforcement. Federal officials describe the move as a necessary step to protect agents and restore order. State and local leaders, however, have accused the federal government of ignoring the legal limits that govern both immigration and military authority. Beneath the political clash lies a deeper legal concern: whether federal agencies are operating within the procedural safeguards and statutory frameworks that legitimize their power.
A federal crackdown expands beyond its mandate
In September 2025, the White House launched Operation Midway Blitz, a federal initiative that targets undocumented immigrants with criminal histories in Illinois. However, multiple reports from legal observers and local press allege that ICE agents tear-gassed and body slammed protestors and journalists, and fired pepper balls from a rooftop, striking a reverend on his head who was praying peacefully. Additionally, ICE agents have reportedly conducted home raids and vehicle stops without judicial warrants, conduct that conflicts with the procedural standards laid out in 8 C.F.R. § 287.8, a rule governing warrantless arrests and detentions. ICE, as an arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), operates under regulations that require agents to establish probable cause, identify themselves, and obtain proper authorization before making an arrest. Agents stepping outside those parameters shift from lawful administration to unilateral power.
On October 7, 2025, President Trump authorized National Guard deployments in the Chicago area, citing threats to federal facilities. Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker refused to consent, arguing that such use of the National Guard violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from performing civilian law-enforcement duties without express congressional approval. The administration’s claim that Guard troops are merely “protecting federal property” stretches that narrow statutory exception to its limits. The statute, along with the Department of Defense regulations are clear: military forces may guard federal property but may not conduct arrests, investigations, or crowd control unless the Insurrection Act is properly invoked. Although President Trump has threatened to do so, no such invocation occurred. Two days later, on October 9, a federal judge temporarily blocked the deployment, finding insufficient evidence of a public disturbance that would justify military deployment intervention. The ruling reinforced that even in the name of security, executive power must trace its authority to written law.
Procedural compliance and the limits of executive discretion
Executive enforcement must be rooted in procedural law. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was enacted to prevent arbitrary executive action by requiring agencies to act transparently, justify their decisions, and follow uniform procedures before adopting or changing enforcement policies. Under 5 U.S.C. § 553, agencies must use notice-and-comment rulemaking to alter substantive rules that affect public rights or obligations. When agencies such as ICE or DHS shift enforcement priorities through internal memoranda, oral directives, or politically driven task force orders, they risk engaging in de facto rulemaking without the procedural safeguards that Congress requires.
The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), striking down a federal action for lacking a genuine, documented rationale. The same reasoning applies here: if ICE and DHS expanded their enforcement scope in Chicago without documented analysis or public justification, those actions not only bypass congressional accountability but are likely to be found procedurally invalid under the APA. These procedural rules ensure not only fairness but also stability; without them, enforcement becomes reactive and inconsistent, and civilians face a heightened risk of oppression at the hands of law enforcement.
The cost of ignoring the rulebook
The legal boundaries governing federal enforcement exist to prevent abuse and preserve legitimacy. Requiring warrants under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 protects individuals from unreasonable searches, the same principle embodied in the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Posse Comitatus Act limits military involvement in civilian governance to preserve state authority and civilian freedom. Internal compliance mechanisms within agencies depend on a shared understanding that rules apply equally to everyone at every level of power. Ignoring statutory and procedural limits carries both legal and institutional consequences. Agencies that cannot justify their actions with clear authority face injunctions and judicial scrutiny. Bypassing statutory procedure could become precedent, thus normalizing shortcuts and improvisation in the name of efficiency. Once the public observes federal actors treating legal limits as optional, trust in the government falters, and rebuilding institutional credibility becomes far more difficult than adhering to the rules in the first place. The resulting environment breeds errors, civil rights violations, and costly litigation that the public ultimately pays for.
Law must lead power
The confrontation between federal and state authorities in Chicago extends beyond immigration policy; it raises a deeper constitutional question – whether governmental power in America remains bound by the law. Federal authority carries legitimacy only when exercised through legal procedures that give it meaning. When those procedures are disregarded, the government stops enforcing the law and democracy is at risk. The rule of law depends not only on the power to act but on the discipline to act lawfully—and that discipline begins with adhering to the rules already written.