A heated debate is unfolding in the 9th Circuit Court, where a federal appeals panel is questioning an order that blocks President Trump's plan to deploy troops to Portland. This controversial move has sparked a legal battle, pitting the Trump administration against the state of Oregon and the city of Portland.
The Trump administration's lawyers argue that the President has the authority to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard, despite Governor Tina Kotek's objections. They claim that federal law allows such actions in cases of foreign invasion, rebellion, or when the President faces challenges in enforcing federal laws with regular forces.
However, Judge Karin Immergut, nominated by Trump himself, found that the administration failed to provide clear evidence that these conditions existed in Portland. She ruled that the White House could not send troops to deal with protests at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building.
The appeals court panel, consisting of Judges Ryan Nelson, Bridget Bade, and Susan Graber, expressed skepticism about the President's sweeping authorities in law enforcement. They also questioned the judiciary's role in limiting National Guard deployments when the President deems it necessary.
Judge Nelson stated, "I am trying to understand how a district court can question the President's assessment of executing laws."
Eric McArthur, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued that the President's decision was justified by the law and the situation on the ground in Portland. He claimed that the violence and threats directed at federal officials and facilities significantly impeded federal law enforcement, warranting the deployment of the National Guard.
Attorneys for Oregon and Portland acknowledged occasional violence at the ongoing ICE building protests but argued that sending military forces for largely protected First Amendment conduct is an overreach of executive power.
Stacy Marie Chaffin, an assistant attorney general for Oregon, acknowledged the President's deference in federalizing the National Guard but emphasized that this deference has limits, especially when the President's determinations seem detached from reality.
Protests at the ICE facility have seen varying levels of participation since June, with gatherings ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred people on some nights. Federal officers have used tear gas and other crowd control measures to disperse protesters.
Leaders of the Portland Police Bureau have testified that the protests have dwindled since June, with September protests rarely drawing more than a few dozen people.
McArthur highlighted an incident on September 20th, where a protester with a large sword or stick assaulted another person, and protesters displayed aggressive behavior towards marked police cars. He argued that these incidents demonstrate the violent nature of the protests and the need for the National Guard's presence.
Chaffin countered that the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for responding to both violent and nonviolent protests. She emphasized the abundance of law enforcement agencies under the President's control, questioning the need for the National Guard's involvement.
Judge Nelson expressed concern about the President's ability to direct resources as he sees fit, stating that it is "a little counterintuitive" for Portland to suggest a different response.
Chaffin acknowledged the existence of information within the executive branch that may not be publicly known. However, she argued that the Trump administration failed to present evidence of an organized attempt to overthrow the government, which is what they are essentially asking the court to consider.
The appeals court judges have not yet issued a ruling but promised to provide their opinion as soon as possible.
This case raises important questions about the balance of powers and the role of the judiciary in checking executive authority. It remains to be seen how the 9th Circuit Court will navigate this complex and controversial issue.
