![HI.
The voluntary cessation exception to mootness applies.
Even if the recent troop withdrawal left Plaintiffs without the need for any further relief (it
doesn't), this case presents a textbook example of the voluntary cessation exception to mootness.
Defendants can obtain dismissal only if it is "absolutely clear" their challenged conduct " could not
reasonably be expected to recur." W. Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 720 (2022). The President's
promise to "come back" is irreconcilable with this standard. Defendants' motion should fail.
A. It is not absolutely clear that unlawful troop deployments are over for good when the President already has promised to "come back."
Defendants cannot avoid application of the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness in
this case based on the President's statements and Defendants' continued insistence that the
challenged orders are lawful.
Even as the President announced the demobilization of National Guard troops in Illinois,
he simultaneously promised to "come back." Specifically, on December 31, 2025, President Trump
posted on social media that "we are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland," only to add: "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when
crime begins to soar again- Only a question of time!"6
This pronouncement was not a one-off. Days later, at a January 4, 2026 press conference,
the President again promised to come back to address crime in Chicago, explaining:
We brought down crime by 25%. Governor Pritzker] didn't do anything. He's not doing anything. But they want us to leave. He had a day where they had 17 murders not too long ago . .. 17 murders and 77 people shot. But 17 died. And then he talks about, 'Oh, we can handle it.' He can't handle it. But we pull back, and we'll go in at the appropriate time.?](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreiab2sjjlx4fztino2jdwdpwvibzdpa4uyldvd52bdn66grvhobtoi)
HI.
The voluntary cessation exception to mootness applies.
Even if the recent troop withdrawal left Plaintiffs without the need for any further relief (it
doesn't), this case presents a textbook example of the voluntary cessation exception to mootness.
Defendants can obtain dismissal only if it is "absolutely clear" their challenged conduct " could not
reasonably be expected to recur." W. Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 720 (2022). The President's
promise to "come back" is irreconcilable with this standard. Defendants' motion should fail.
A. It is not absolutely clear that unlawful troop deployments are over for good when the President already has promised to "come back."
Defendants cannot avoid application of the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness in
this case based on the President's statements and Defendants' continued insistence that the
challenged orders are lawful.
Even as the President announced the demobilization of National Guard troops in Illinois,
he simultaneously promised to "come back." Specifically, on December 31, 2025, President Trump
posted on social media that "we are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland," only to add: "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when
crime begins to soar again- Only a question of time!"6
This pronouncement was not a one-off. Days later, at a January 4, 2026 press conference,
the President again promised to come back to address crime in Chicago, explaining:
We brought down crime by 25%. Governor Pritzker] didn't do anything. He's not doing anything. But they want us to leave. He had a day where they had 17 murders not too long ago . .. 17 murders and 77 people shot. But 17 died. And then he talks about, 'Oh, we can handle it.' He can't handle it. But we pull back, and we'll go in at the appropriate time.?
Sounds like today's argument will largely turn on the "voluntary cessation exception to mootness."
From the Illinois/Chicago brief:
![O’Neill Burke’s office insisted Monday she’s “horrified by the thuggish and inappropriate conduct of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents in Chicago and elsewhere.”
“The petition seeking a special prosecutor is frivolous, contains baseless allegations and gross misrepresentations of the law, and will make it more difficult for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to successfully do its job protecting the public,” O’Neill Burke’s office said in a statement.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreid5gyqoinyzxcsocja3l2avym3fejlizo4qnfcqite6nwjcj6pdkm)
