A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, less than 24 hours after California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration.
The ruling came during an urgent Sunday night hearing, where it was revealed that the Department of Defense had plans not only to send 300 troops from California but also to federalize 400 members of the Texas National Guard.
Judge Karin Immergut of the Oregon District Court questioned the legality of the federal government’s actions, especially in light of her previous order that had already prohibited the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard.
“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland, and nothing has changed?” Immergut asked during the hearing.
The judge interrupted Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton multiple times to emphasize that the federal government’s actions appeared to contravene her earlier ruling. She expressed dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the situation, asserting that the circumstances in Portland hadn’t changed enough to justify further military involvement.
In a statement following the hearing, Bonta expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, referring to the President’s actions as unprecedented and outside the acceptable norms.
“The President’s move to deploy the National Guard of one state over the objections of a Governor to another state over the objections of a second is well outside of the norms or practices of any President in recent history,” Bonta stated.
Bonta’s lawsuit, which was joined by legal representatives for Portland and Oregon, highlighted what they deemed an illegal federal overreach.
He described the situation as needing urgent attention, arguing that the President’s decision was tantamount to deploying military personnel in a police capacity across the United States in a manner that is unprecedented.
By Sunday evening, reports indicated that up to 100 California National Guard members had arrived in Portland by plane, with plans for another 200 troops to follow soon.
Governor Gavin Newsom joined Bonta in condemning the actions of President Trump, labeling them reckless and authoritarian in a statement released on Sunday morning.
Trump has characterized Portland and other Democratic-led cities as high-crime zones, suggesting that training operations for the military should occur in these locations.
The legal dispute centers around the federal authorization to deploy National Guard troops. Bonta and his team argue that the White House is not adhering to federal law that permits such actions under Title 10, Section 12406, and claim that the rationale for deploying California troops to Los Angeles does not sufficiently connect to deployment in Portland.
This ongoing legal drama is unique, given the simultaneous opposition from two western states that are led by Democratic governors.
Legal experts note that the situation has not been encountered before, raising questions about how these overlapping legal proceedings will unfold.
The concerns about federal troops acting in law enforcement roles are not new, as previous court rulings have indicated that their involvement must be closely scrutinized.
In another significant case earlier this year, California sued Trump after he federalized thousands of National Guard troops to protect federal assets and assist immigration enforcement amid protests.
While a district judge had initially ruled in favor of the state, a three-judge panel allowed Trump to retake control of the federalized troops, complicating whatever legal strategies Bonta may have.
The judge’s recent ruling in Oregon is seen as a victory for those opposing the federal government’s deployment of military personnel for law enforcement tasks.
Bonta’s arguments hinge on the assertion that the conditions in Portland do not validate the federal presence and that the President’s rationale is both shifting and legally flawed.
Amid the back-and-forth between state and federal authorities, the tension in Portland remains palpable, with various forms of protest occurring in response to immigration policies and federal law enforcement strategies.
Judge Immergut had previously ruled that the protests constituted incidents that did not warrant federal military intervention, emphasizing that local law enforcement retained the capacity to manage these events.
Immergut characterized the behavior of protesters as inappropriate but not severe enough to require military support, noting that these tactics do not ascertain the necessity of federal troops, especially in light of state-led infrastructures.
White House officials have refrained from providing extensive comment on the ongoing situation, but they continue to assert that federal intervention is imperative to protect federal assets in what they describe as a lawless environment.
Statements from senior advisors to the President have escalated the rhetoric around the court ruling, framing opposition as an attack on federal authority and a need for military intervention to restore order.
Experts anticipate that the Ninth Circuit Court will soon address the ongoing legal disputes, which may trigger additional guidance on the deployment of National Guard troops across state lines in these contentious political climates.
As the legal battles continue, the implications extend beyond the current dispute in Portland to the principles governing the use of military force within the United States, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
image source from：calmatters
