>> thanks for joining us on Chicago tonight.

I'm Brandis Friedman.

Here's what we're looking at.

Trump attorneys agree to extend an order barring National Guard troops from being deployed in Chicago.

As all eyes look to the Supreme Court.

>> When we divide.

We cannot >> And a new book details Reverend Jesse Jackson's fries in politics and ongoing push for civil rights.

First off tonight.

>> The Trump administration is agreeing to a 30 day extension of an order blocking National Guard deployment in Chicago.

If District Judge April Perry approved the extension at a hearing tomorrow, the order would be in place through November.

24th.

But the Trump administration, meanwhile, has appealed the judge's initial order to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court and says they expect the high court to rule very soon.

We'll have more on this coming up in the program.

26 Ward Alderman Jessie Fuentes is filing a federal claim and seeking damages after being handcuffed and detained by an immigration agent earlier this month in the video or when to is is at Humboldt Park Health in her ward where agents sought to detain a mandate allegedly been chasing during the encounter.

She asked agents for sign judicial warrant for that man has a mask to agent.

Grabbed her in places are handcuffs.

She was let outside and released from the cops.

Attorneys for Fuentes say they are filing under the Federal Tort Claims Act which allows those who've been injured quote by negligent or wrongful act of a federal government employee acting within the scope of his or her employment to seek monetary damages.

For more on the claim you can head to our Web site.

Hearings over the mayor's budget proposal are underway at City Hall and older people are already balking at some of it.

One of the controversial plans uses a billion dollars in property taxes earmarked to fight blight to help balance the city's budget.

Instead, the proposal would also send more than 550 million dollars to Chicago public schools.

The mayor's budget team says funding for projects that are already underway or close to getting off the ground would be untouched.

But critics say they were alarmed by the proposal in worried it means projects will be taken off the table.

Some city council members are closely questioning the mayor's budget team today over imposing a so-called head tax on large companies, which Governor JB Pritzker also said he opposes for more on that, please visit our website.

And we're still some weeks away from holiday travel.

But O'Hare Airport is soaring after record setting summer season.

The Chicago Department of Aviation reports the busiest summer heres 70 year history with 24.3 million trip passengers traveling through the airport during June July and August that beats the previous record of 24 million in 2019.

That was a pre-pandemic peak.

Up next, the latest on the potential National Guard deployment to Chicago right after this.

>> Chicago tonight is made possible in part by the Alexander and John Nichols the gym and K maybe family.

The Pope Brothers Foundation and the support of these donors.

>> 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 April Perry tomorrow.

We'll have to leave it there for now.

Professor Harold Craig, thanks again for joining us.

We appreciate it.

>> Up next, CNN anchor Abby Phillip on her new book about Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Who can forget that night in Grant Park November 2008, when President-elect Barack Obama gave his victory speech, having become the first black person ever elected to office in the audience watching was a tearful Jesse Jackson senior.

The civil rights leader turned politician had run for the office himself twice in the 80's.

Here's a bit of Jackson speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

>> We cannot win.

common ground as a basis for survival and development change grow.

>> Now a new book details.

Those historic campaigns and Jackson's rise in politics.

It's called a dream deferred.

Jesse Jackson and the fight for black political power and it's written by CNN journalist and anchor Abby Phillip, Phillip, Welcome Chicago tonight.

Thank guys for having friends.

So Jackson ran for president 1984, 88.

But both times he was not able to secure the nomination as history tells in an interview that we did with him back in 2020, he recalled some of the changes that he pushed for within the Democratic Party.

>> And they don't fall for sure.

And some it a call.

3 million new also in So it's good for soul.

You have one month to go, although it is.

So are in the market that is the office and we changed to proportionality.

It President Barack and Hillary and the cause is under way.

On floor.

sure the issue Pennsylvania and Texas.

And then loser isn't legal.

now that he was giving when you from a strong second.

So we change rules.

>> So hear him say we democratize democracy.

How are some of the strategies that he used back then still reflected in today's politics?

I'm thinking about the importance of voter registration.

Yeah.

And Stacey Abrams.

>> Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, he really I took the lessons of the civil rights movement and moved into the next level.

You know, he was a student of that movement.

He was there with Dr King and in the 70's and the 80's.

What he was saying to voters of all stripes, but particularly to black voters is that they have untapped political power and he wanted them to use it.

And so when he went on that voter registration drive, called it the Southern crease aid.

He to all the southern states and he said to black voters, your vote is the difference between, you know, Ronald Reagan winning or losing a campaign 1980, for example.

And that was a powerful message and he registered millions of people to vote, helped the Democrats retake power in 1986. and really change the structure of the Democratic Party.

Now we know that voters of color comprise a big chunk of the Democratic Party.

Well, Jesse Jackson was a key to making that happen and wasn't just black voters.

He brought Arab-American voters into the process, Asian-American voters into the process, a Hispanic voters into the process and a lot of it had to do not just with the ballot that they cast in November, but also how the party factor them in the nominating process.

So when he was talking there in that clip about proportional allocation of delegates, that's basically to say that if you have a candidate like Barack Obama who is not an establishment candidate, who's outsider, they can still rack up delegates and still have a shot at the nomination.

And that is the reason that President Obama was able to win the Democratic nomination 2008.

And it's probably the reason that he's president today.

>> Did you always see this sort of through line from from Jesse Jackson's campaign to to the history that we already know is written.

Yeah, you know, I mean, >> always say I was born a few weeks after the 1988, campaign was over.

So this book is not a lecture.

a reminder.

It's a history lesson for me and people like me who grew up in the Obama era and beyond.

And you.

I think it's important to just ask the question what came before it.

And there was a lot that came before it and I don't think I and many other people realize to what extent Jesse Jackson paved the way, not just in the tactics of politics.

You know, the delegates in all of that stuff.

That sounds very wonky to a lot of people, but also in the message in the vision that he had of unity in a Democratic coalition of using all the different parts of the rainbow of America and putting them together in one political party.

He was largely responsible for that.

And frankly, in the 1980's.

No one realized that because it wasn't until Barack Obama became president.

But I think people started to realize, oh, wait, Jesse Jackson actually did something that lasted beyond those 2 campaigns.

Jesse Jackson, he's human just like the rest of right?

we know that he learned, of course, from Dr Martin Luther King Junior.

He was with him.

He was there with him in Memphis at the time.

>> Dr King's assassination.

But it was what happened afterward that caused a bit of a rift between him and other leaders of the movement at the time.

What was that?

You know, this is pivotal moment in his life story and >> that he was there in the courtyard the day that Dr King was killed.

But after he Dr King was declared dead.

He left Memphis and he went up to Chicago when he was wearing shirt that was covered in the blood of Dr King and he wore that shirt for days and he left the rest of Dr King's acolytes and advisors who were his peers in Memphis and they stayed there and they were angry.

some of this has been written about and they've talked about in the past.

But that rift was so deep and long-lasting for many of them because when he went to Chicago with that bloodied shirt on is on.

He went unheeded media.

He was on television.

He was making public appearances and many people in that orbit thought that it was self-serving.

And that's one of the things that he's really had to live with and had to explain.

And he's talked about it and I detail this in the book and he said that the reason that he did it was because he was young.

He was.

A little immature and he was angry.

You know, he was in his early 20's.

I think people forget how young he was at that time and he was he says he was very angry.

But some of those other people like Jose Williams.

They were angry too, because they felt like he was trying to step into Dr King's shoes before even been buried.

Even later on, though, he could be viewed as sort of opportunistic.

But he was very familiar with Never met a camera.

He didn't like necessarily not But, you know, he would have during the campaign he would a prayer service, you know, as home and invite the media to witnesses.

And I think his critics also thought him as sort opportunistic self-serving.

Yeah.

>> You know, he's never met a camera that he didn't okay, everybody that knows him knows that.

And I think that's a huge part of his personality was that he learned very early on.

threat is decades in public life to use the power of the media and in a way that was both a blessing and a curse.

He was so skilled at it better than perhaps anybody else of his generation.

But at the same time it made people think that that was only thing that mattered to him.

But there was, you know, a self-serving is the word the EU's.

But I think that's a word that a lot of people might used to describe his love of the cameras.

So it's 2 sides of the same coin.

I do sometimes I think, though, as I'm working on this book and as somebody who's covered politics in these recent years.

That skill of using the media is something that is essential to succeeding in politics today.

But it was looked at very differently in the 70's and the 80's when he was doing it.

And so in a way, he was a little bit ahead of his time and it did not worked his favor in that campaign at Let's talk about the media because journalism these days isn't doing so hot, Only 28% of Americans say they trust the media.

According to the latest Gallup poll, news deserts have hit a new high and that is research fresh out of a middle school of journalism at Northwestern today.

>> How do we regain that trust?

>> You know, we have to be more transparent in the media about what we do and how we do it.

I think that this is this lack of trust is also a lack of understanding.

You know, I've worked in print.

I worked in television.

And when I worked in print, people couldn't tell the difference between the news pages and the editorial pages.

Similarly now with the Internet, people can't tell the difference between opinion journalism and journalism.

That's not meant to be that.

And in television, I think people don't understand.

When we talk about sources, what does that even mean?

Why do we named I think that there on our end right there needs to be more transparency explaining to people what we do and how we do it.

And the fact that we're not saying that we don't make mistakes in this business.

But when we do it, try to correct them as quickly as possible and that the difference between trustworthy media and media that is not trustworthy is that is that lack of transparency.

So I think that there's work to be done there.

But I also think that we have to adapt to the way the people are consuming the news.

They are not doing it in traditional forms as much anymore.

And we need to go where people are and take the content to them.

There's a huge interest in a desire and news.

It's just that the medium and the message or not they're not sinking up and we need to do a better job of that.

>> You host CNN NEWSNIGHT on week nights in the debate on that show can get pretty spirit to yet.

You were raised by Trinidad and parents in the DC area.

One of 6 kids.

So how did that experience in the family dinner table conversation?

appears you come to our Thanksgiving dinner table.

you know, first of all, I will say that, you know, my parents are immigrants from Trinidad Tobago.

And if you know, I tried it in person.

They're very political.

>> They actually are very interested in politics very knowledgeable about politics.

So we always talked about current events.

We watched a lot of news coming up.

Listen to a lot of news.

And so first, that's the first part was just that that was always kind of part of the dinner table conversation.

But there's always a healthy debate in every family, every single person is different.

And when you have a big family, you really and appreciate the value of those different points of view.

And that's how I approach my job.

We have a table and its actually a six-person table.

I did.

That was not planned, but it's it's 5 guests and me and we sat there and every person has a different perspective.

And even while we have spirited to beat the point is let's all talk.

Let's all have it out.

Let's prep press each other's idea ideas.

And I think that is I think that's the spirit of democracy.

I wish there was more of that.

But we try to do it every night.

And we we are really committed to the different points of view.

We don't just have people who represent a narrow band of politics.

We want to represent wheel spanned a few points in this country.

Both Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, of course, came out of Chicago.

We have a local pretty popular, a historian who says that everything came from Chicago nightmare that just happened Chicago.

I'll tell you pretty rich political history as well.

Of course.

>> How would you describe the role of Chicago in national polls?

Yeah, well, you know, if I talk about this in the book but held Washington's.

>> victory as mayor of Chicago really push this country into a new era.

That was actually the first test of black political power.

He was able to mobilize black voters in this city to elect a mayor, a black mayor as a major city mayor.

And that was a huge moment.

And that moment was also a signal to national Democrats about the power black voters.

So that was actually one of the key rationale is that Jesse Jackson news to run for president.

He wanted to send a message to the party leaders that what happened in Chicago could happen in the rest of the country.

So it really does all come back to this many ways and >> I mean, you could say so much about Chicago's role, but this is a major American City which control of the city was a massive signal to the rest of the country.

And in 1983, it was in the 1984, when Jesse Jackson ran for president.

He used Chicago as an example of what could be.

You heard it from Abby Philips.

That must be true.

Abby Phillip, thank you so much for joining Thank you much for absolutely again.

The book is called a dream deferred.

Jesse Jackson and the fight for Black political Power.

>> And we're back right after this.

And that is our show for this Tuesday night.

Be sure to sign up for our free email newsletter.

The Daily Chicago one at W t Tw Dot Com Slash newsletter and join us tomorrow night at 5, 30 10 from public transit funding to energy costs.

What will state lawmakers addressed during the fall veto session?

Now for all of us here at Chicago tonight, I'm grant us Friedman, thank you for watching.

Stay healthy and safe.

Have a good thing.

>> Closed captioning is made possible by Robert and Clifford law offices, personal