A federal appeals court expressed skepticism on Thursday regarding a temporary order that prevents President Donald Trump from deploying Oregon National Guard members to the city streets of Portland.
During the proceedings, attorneys representing the Trump administration argued that the president possesses the authority to federalize and dispatch the National Guard, regardless of objections from Oregon Governor Tina Kotek.
They appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to overturn a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut last Saturday.
Federal law empowers the president to deploy Guard members under specific circumstances, including invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion, or situations where federal law cannot be executed by “regular forces.”
Judge Immergut, who was nominated by President Trump, concluded that the administration failed to demonstrate that any of those conditions were present in Portland. Her ruling indicated that the White House could not send troops to address protests occurring at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the city.
In her initial ruling, Immergut stated, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”
The three-judge appeals court panel exhibited a degree of skepticism about the restrictions imposed by the judiciary on National Guard deployments, considering the president’s broad authority in such matters.
Panel members included Judges Ryan Nelson, Bridget Bade, both appointed by Trump, and Susan Graber, a former Oregon Supreme Court justice appointed by President Clinton.
The judges raised questions during Thursday’s hearing about the judiciary’s role in limiting the president’s powers regarding National Guard activation when the president perceives it to be necessary.
Eric McArthur, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, asserted that the president was correct on both legal and factual grounds regarding the conditions in Portland.
McArthur emphasized that federal law authorizes the president to call up the National Guard whenever “violence and threats of violence directed at federal officials and facilities have significantly impeded federal law enforcement.”
In response, attorneys for the state of Oregon and the city of Portland acknowledged that some violence had occurred amidst the ongoing protests at the ICE facility. However, they contended that deploying the military for activities largely protected under First Amendment rights constitutes an overreach of executive authority.
Stacy Marie Chaffin, an assistant attorney general with the Oregon Department of Justice, conceded the president’s substantial deference when federalizing the National Guard.
However, she cautioned that “that deference has a limit,” stating that this limit is reached when the president’s decisions are disconnected from reality.
Protests at the ICE facility have frequently seen minimal attendance, with fewer than two dozen participants occupying the area each night since June. Despite such low numbers, some nights have witnessed protests drawing hundreds, leading federal officers to utilize tear gas and other crowd control measures to disperse crowds.
In recent narrative from various conservative social media influencers, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and the president himself, claims have circulated suggesting that Portland is under siege. Similar assertions by the president have also been made regarding cities like Memphis and Chicago, where Texas National Guard troops were deployed on Thursday to aid federal law enforcement.
The appeals court judges did not provide an immediate ruling but indicated they would offer their opinion as swiftly as possible.
image source from：klcc
