A federal appellate court has unanimously ruled against former President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, declaring that the “facts do not justify the President’s actions.”

The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes judges appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama. In their decision, released on Thursday, the judges acknowledged that Trump’s judgments warrant “great deference,” echoing a recent 9th Circuit case regarding the National Guard’s deployment in Oregon. However, they affirmed that the district court’s findings were “not clearly erroneous.” More details can be found in a recent report.

In the per curiam decision, which reflects the panel’s collective view, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, and Senior Judge David Hamilton determined that there is no “rebellion” or threat thereof under the definition provided by 10 U.S. Code § 12406. They concluded that Trump was not unable to use regular forces to enforce U.S. laws and protect ICE agents and federal property.

The judges stated, “Political opposition is not rebellion. A protest does not escalate to the level of rebellion simply because participants are advocating for various legal or policy changes, are well-organized, call for significant governmental transformations, use civil disobedience as a protest method, or exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms as permitted by current laws.”

The opinion further clarified that a protest does not become a rebellion due to sporadic and isolated unlawful acts or violence by rogue participants. The court noted, “Such actions surpass the protections of the First Amendment, of course, and law enforcement has taken action against the individuals responsible.” The full opinion is available here.

The judges determined that Trump is not “likely to succeed” in showing that “spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions” meet the statutory meaning of a “rebellion” justifying the federalization of hundreds of National Guard troops, whether from Texas or Illinois, over the 10th Amendment objection of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker.

According to the panel, the record up to now shows that the Trump administration “has been able to protect federal property and personnel without the National Guard’s help,” and so it left U.S. District Judge April Perry’s injunction in place.

At the same time, the judges acknowledged the situation on the ground could change. For that reason, the panel said the harm of allowing National Guard to remain “temporarily under federal control, without deploying” seems “relatively minimal.”