Brief comes as San Francisco leaders stand firm against Trump’s unnecessary and unwelcome threats to send the National Guard to San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO, CA (October 21, 2025) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu joined a coalition of local elected officials, cities, and counties from across the United States in filing an amicus brief yesterday in Trump v. Illinois, urging the United States Supreme Court to prevent the Trump Administration from using the military for domestic law enforcement in American cities and deploying the National Guard to Chicago, Illinois. The brief details how the Administration’s actions threaten state and local sovereignty, undermine public trust and local law enforcement, destabilize communities, harm local economies, and impose millions of dollars in unreimbursed costs on local governments.
Mirroring the unwanted and unwarranted deployments of the military to Los Angeles and Portland, President Trump authorized the deployment of 300 members of the National Guard to Chicago earlier this month over the objections of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Illinois officials filed a lawsuit to block the deployment. A federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Trump Administration to halt the deployment of the National Guard to Illinois, and thoroughly detailed the lack of factual evidence warranting the deployment. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals allowed the troops to remain federalized but barred their deployment to Illinois. The Trump Administration appealed that order to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now consider whether to pause the order preventing the deployment to Illinois.
President Trump has made similar threats to send the National Guard or military to San Francisco, despite any factual basis for such a deployment. San Francisco leaders have made clear that there is no sound reason for a National Guard deployment in the City.
“Needlessly and haphazardly deploying the military to American cities makes us all less safe,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “These deployments inflame tensions, undermine local law enforcement, and harm local economies. We are joining local jurisdictions across the country to defend the rule of law and our right to peace and safety. We urge the Court to uphold the bedrock legal principle that domestic law enforcement is not the military’s job. San Francisco has seen historic drops in crime, and our local law enforcement are more than capable of keeping our city safe while upholding First Amendment rights. Our local law enforcement have deep local experience and expertise that the military simply does not. Should President Trump make good on his ridiculous threats to send the military to San Francisco, our city is prepared, and my office is prepared to take the necessary legal action to defend San Francisco.”
Local perspective
San Francisco is one of the safest cities in the nation. The city is experiencing a 70-year low in homicides and a 22-year low in car break-ins. Major retail businesses are opening, and the City’s economy is on the rise. San Francisco recently managed an over 50,000-person “No Kings” demonstration without incident, and continues to successfully host largescale conferences and events for out-of-town visitors.
Threats to deploy the military undermine this progress. Cities where the military has been deployed have already reported business losses, a decline in tourism, and increased public fear due to unnecessary deployments.
Federalizing the National Guard or domestically deploying the military should be an absolute last resort where local resources are truly overwhelmed. Deploying federal forces without state and local consent or coordination can pose safety risks for all involved. The presence of unwanted military troops can interfere with local law enforcement’s chain of command, deployment structures, and de-escalation strategies.
The vast majority of protests and demonstrations across the United States are peaceful. Through years of experience, local jurisdictions, including San Francisco, have developed policies and practices that balance the free speech rights of residents with public safety needs.
Unlike the military, local law enforcement have a keen understanding of their jurisdictions and where protest activity is likely to endanger public safety. They have deep ties to community leaders, and have established information sharing practices and communication channels with other first responders and public agencies.
Local law enforcement are also more accountable to their communities, and their methods of policing often reflect community priorities and concerns. In many states, including California, local law enforcement are subject to rigorous training, civilian oversight around the use of force, and utilize body-worn cameras to document interactions with the public.
The amicus brief was led by the Public Rights Project, and joined by 109 mayors, elected officials, cities, and counties. These amici jurisdictions differ in size, demographics, and policy priorities, but share an interest in keeping their constituents safe through local policing. This is the fourth amicus brief that San Francisco has filed in various National Guard lawsuits standing up for the fundamental authority of local governments to police themselves.
The case is Donald J. Trump, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al., United States Supreme Court, Case No. 25A443. A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.
###