>> Federal courts in Illinois are busy this week with hearings on court cases between the state of Illinois, local organizations and the Trump administration.

As we heard of the top of the show, the administration has agreed to a 30 day extension of the temporary restraining order that pauses National Guard deployment to the city of Chicago as it asks the Supreme Court to step in.

Joining us on zoom to help us walk through all of this is Chicago.

Can't college of law professor Harold Krantz.

Harold, Welcome back.

Thank you for joining us.

>> My pleasure.

Good to see you again.

>> So let's start at the and I don't want viewers to get this confused with the other hearing that we heard about yesterday and that one was regarding immigration agents and what type of force they are use when in the field.

This one Attorney General Kwame Raoul said that he would have to wait until the president deployed the National Guard troops before the state could file suit.

Peanuts.

You know what grounds the president was using in order to know what grounds upon which to file that complaint.

What argument to the state in the city end up using once the president did deploy those troops?

Will >> Government.

administration used to argument to justify positioning there National Guard here.

They said the deal was reached billion billion constituted people taking up some kind of physical force against government.

And they also said that it impossible to.

To force federal law without federalizing the National Guard and those twin arguments were shot down by Judge Perry in the hearing about 2 weeks ago.

She claimed that there is no.

Seemingly possible the const to constitute a rebellion here.

Nothing is going out of the ordinary.

And she said that even though there's some protests, local law enforcement are perfectly adequate grants more than a quick to respond to those kinds demonstrations, other kinds of activities and that there was no we'll absence of federal law so that therefore those justifications didn't hold water and she then ruled against the president ordering the troops not be deployed here.

could be federalized.

The 7th circuit.

Then later.

Well, this and said, I'm sorry, go ahead.

>> Yeah, it was just going to say because in in issuing that temporary restraining order that came just after the intended to 100 National Guard troops from Texas.

The 300 from Illinois, a handful about 14 from California.

As soon as those Texas troops landed in the area.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order on the basis of that lawsuit.

What what's been the Trump administration's argument in response to that temporary restraining order?

And of course, in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

>> there are biting by the temporary restraining order, which is obviously critical day, basically said that good Constitution gives the president the final say making the determination whether there's a rebellion and whether there's a need or National Guard because of the difficulties when forcing water.

And they said that the district court judge cannot second guess that determination of the commander in chief under the Constitution and first, particular judge Perry said that Jeffries is appropriate to the determination of the president but not capitulation.

There has to be some kind of scrutiny of the reasoning and she found that reasoning very threadbare made up changing and not worthy of deference and that led to finding.

And then on a quick appeal to the 7th circuit, the 7th circuit.

Largely do holding that National Guard could be fertilized, but it just can be used in Chicago to out until there's a final decision in this litigation.

And that's going to be to took us right to leaves the Trump administration to file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.

Go ahead.

>> are charges that the guards are here permitted to be here by the Second Circuit ruling.

But they can't be deployed and they can't be deployed then unless the Supreme intrudes and takes his case to the Supreme Court, usually in the past, he's taken steps to help the Trump administration in these kind of.

2 EUR or temporary injunctive relief cases but they may not.

Obviously, this is a national ports.

We see what's going on in Portland.

We saw this going on Los Angeles.

So the Supreme Court can pick and choose which case it wants to decide.

And now the Trump administration has given the Supreme Court grace by agreeing to the three-day extension.

And it's signaling the Supreme Court that it will comply with the Judge Perry's order, but it really wants the Supreme Court to weigh in and obviously weigh in on behalf of the administration.

>> So you mentioned Portland and and the the appeal that's been going on there.

What could that ruling happened?

What you know, what kind of indication might that ruling give us about what might be happening here?

What could happen here?

>> Yes, of the 9th Circuit is his go in a slightly different path than the 7th circuit.

There was a 2 to one split decision.

But yesterday the decision came down saying that President Trump can deploy the National Guard in Portland based upon a very differential reading of of the record and you know, whether or not that's accurate not is sort of beside the point we now have to appellate court decisions, which someone in tension with each other, which does call out for the Supreme Court too.

We view at least one of the cases in order to get the law right.

What does the president have to do in terms of supporting his determination that there's a rebellion?

What kind of evidence most the president marshal to determine whether or not there's absence of several law enforcement and therefore that would require federalization of the National Guard.

So those are 2 very important questions.

They've barely been touched in our nation's history.

And so the Supreme Court very likely will take one or both of the cases to the side.

That issue with that.

They do it now or There's a final decision.

Is the question at hand?

My guess is they'll take it now.

>> So if they take it now, that would be on this or so-called shadow docket that we've been talking about a lot under the Trump administration.

I mean, what kind of outcomes could we be talking about?

If SCOTUS does you know, if they issue a ruling soon as the administration hopes?

>> And the problem with the shadow docket that use reference is that there is no full briefing of the case.

There's no oral argument.

So the important issue like this doesn't get ventilated up before the public.

And so that's why would be a shame would be, I think advantage everybody.

If the court order some kind of the expedited briefing in the case and in oral argument before it makes the decision.

Obviously, the Trump administration oppose that because they would say the delay is harming the national interest But I think it would be in nation's interest to have that kind of percolation ventilation of issues before they weigh What are saying?

It's anybody's guess.

Obviously they're going to argue for in a level of deference to the president, but they may not.

Kofi plan to have to cations masr and then some kind of judicial that's important do exist.

>> Yeah, we know this as we said back in front of Judge