Oregon bid to block Trump's National Guard orders hits skeptical appeals court
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Federal agents confront crowds of protesters outside of an ICE Processing facility in South Portland. Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that President Trump did not have the authority to deploy National Guard troops to Portland during oral arguments Thursday.
The big picture: The panel had tough questions for an attorney for the state, noting the law requires the court give deference to the president when he says troops are needed to protect federal law enforcement and buildings.
What they're saying: "What I'm struggling with is, the president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it just seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come in and say 'No. You need to do it differently,'" Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, said.
Catch up quick: Two weeks ago, Trump said he was authorizing the use National Guard troops "to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists."
- The city and state sought a temporary restraining order to block the arrival of troops, and U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled last weekend the circumstances on the ground did not warrant the intervention of the National Guard.
- Trump's description of Portland as "war ravaged" "was simply untethered to the facts," Immergut wrote in a 31-page opinion blocking the deployment.
The Trump Administration quickly appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, but also attempted to circumvent the lower court ruling by deploying federalized troops from California and Texas.
- In another hearing, late on Sunday evening, Immergut granted a second restraining order barring troops from any state from being sent to the Rose City.
State of play: Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that Immergut "impermissibly second-guessed the Commander in Chief's military judgments," in briefs submitted to the 9th Circuit, per the Oregonian.
- "This is hardly the peaceful and sedate crowd that plaintiffs tried to make it out to be," DOJ lawyer Eric McArthur told the court during argument Thursday. "These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence."
- Lawyers for the city and state wrote that Trump's "actions infringe on Oregon's sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and its own National Guard," and "they do so based entirely on inaccurate information."
- Stacy Chaffin, an attorney representing the state, conceded Thursday that there had been acts of violence earlier in the summer, but that protests had been "calm and sedated" recently and any criminal activity had been "appropriately handled by law enforcement resources."
What's next: It was unclear when the court would issue a ruling, though Nelson said they would respond "as quickly as we're able."
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and may be updated.