Unreliable Information

Some of what these declarants complain about is, while aggravating, insulting, or unpleasant, also Constitutionally protected.  For example, a protestor who happens to lawfully possess a weapon while protesting is exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights. ...  And with respect to Defendants' declarants' descriptions of the ICE Processing Center protests, the version of the facts set forth in these affidavits are impossible to align with the perspectives of state and local law enforcement presented by Plaintiffs.

The Court therefore must make a credibility assessment as to which version of the facts should be believed. ...   [T]his Court ... does note a troubling trend of Defendants' declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence.  This indicates to the Court both bias and lack of objectivity.  The lens through which we view the world changes our perception of the events around us.  Law enforcement officers who go into an event expecting "a shitshow" are much more likely to experience one than those who go into the event prepared to de-escalate it.  Ultimately, this Court must conclude that Defendants' declarants' perceptions are not reliable.  

Finally, the Court notes its concern about a third declaration submitted by Defendants, in which the declarant asserted that the FPS "requested federalized National Guard personnel to support protection of the Federal District Court on Friday, October 10, 2025."  This purported fact was incendiary and seized upon by both parties at oral argument.  It was also inaccurate, as the Court noted on the record.  To their credit, Defendants have since submitted a corrected declaration, and the affiant has declared that they did not make the error willfully.  All of the parties have been moving quickly to compile factual records and legal arguments, and mistakes in such a context are inevitable.  That said, Defendants only presented declarations from three affiants with first-hand knowledge of events in Illinois.  And, as described above, all three contain unreliable information.

-- US District Judge April M Perry, in State of Illinois and City of Chicago v Donald Trump, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense et al, granting a TRO barring mobilization of the National Guard or deployment of the U.S. military over the objection of the Governor of Illinois