A federal appeals court has rejected a request from the Trump administration to lift a lower court order preventing the deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, ruling that the move likely violates constitutional limits on federal power.

In a unanimous decision issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said the administration’s order to deploy troops in the state constituted a “likely violation” of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states.

The panel further found that the White House was “unlikely to succeed” in demonstrating that conditions in Illinois meet the constitutional threshold of a “rebellion” against U.S. authority or that the president is “unable to execute the law with regular forces.”

The ruling keeps in place a temporary restraining order issued earlier by U.S. District Judge April, blocking the federal deployment through October 23. A hearing is scheduled for October 22 to determine whether the order should be extended.

The decision maintains the status quo, allowing the federal government to retain administrative control over National Guard personnel but continuing to bar their deployment anywhere within Illinois.

According to a U.S. Army declaration, approximately 200 federalized National Guard troops from Texas and 14 from California are currently stationed in Illinois. An additional 300 Illinois Guardsmen have been mobilized under presidential order — a move that Governor J.B. Pritzker has formally opposed.

President Donald Trump has argued that the National Guard is needed to address what he describes as “rampant crime” in Chicago, calling the city a “war zone.”

Administration officials have also cited the need to protect federal immigration facilities, which have seen clashes between protesters and federal agents amid intensified immigration enforcement operations.

With the appeals court’s decision, the temporary block remains in effect, keeping the Guard from being deployed until at least late October.

Legal analysts say the ruling represents a significant check on federal authority and highlights the constitutional tension between state sovereignty and executive power during domestic crises.

The case is expected to remain a flashpoint as the Trump administration continues to press its argument that federal intervention is necessary to restore order in cities it views as unsafe.